ANUKAMPA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD Vs. UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent, arising out of the Agreement dated 23.11.2006 for constructing, operating, and maintaining (as BOT Project) a food stall at Ajmeri Gate Interstate Bus Terminus, New Delhi for a period of ten years by the Petitioner.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows. Pursuant to the Agreement dated 23.11.2006 between the Petitioner, a Private Limited Company and the Respondent No. 1, a Public Sector Passenger Road Transport Corporation, the Petitioner started construction of the food plaza on the site and announced the date of opening of food plaza as 20.06.2007. However, the Petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated 14.06.2007 from the Respondent No.1 calling upon the Petitioner to stop all the work on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' from Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) with regard to subject construction had not been obtained. The Petitioner, even though believed that under the said agreement no approval was to be obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), at the instance of the Respondents paid the necessary charges for approval of the site plan and the MCD finally accorded its approval on 26.12.2008.

(3.) The Petitioner thereafter promptly informed the Respondent regarding the said approval and requested the Respondent by letter dated 27.12.2008 to grant permission to complete the unfinished work. By letters dated 09.06.2009, 15.06.2009 and 02.07.2009, the Petitioner was permitted to start the operation of the food plaza temporarily, however, in none of these letters any issue with regard to license fee from 23.06.2007 to 26.12.2008 was ever raised by the Respondents. The Petitioner claims that after having granted permission to the Petitioner, in complete contravention of its assurances, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the employees of the Respondent No.1, approached the site and arbitrarily fixed locks on the subject premises. The aforesaid action of the Respondent No.1 was immediately challenged by the Petitioner before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, where the Respondent took a U-turn and stated that they had not put any lock on the site. The said petition was disposed of by the Allahabad High Court directing the Respondent to remove the locks, if any, with immediate effect.