ATUL BERRY Vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not wish to file any rejoinder.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against two respondents, namely, Tata Teleservices Limited and Vion Network Limited.

(3.) THE notice was issued to both the respondents and the counsel for respondent No. 1, who was present in the Court on 28.05.2014, accepted the notice for respondent No. 1. Thereafter, on the next date, i.e., on 23.03.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission to drop respondent No. 2 from the array of respondents on the ground that he does not claim any relief against him. On his submission, the name of respondent No. 2 was deleted from the array of respondents. The present petition is now, therefore, between petitioner and respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has filed his reply. The respondent No. 1 has not disputed the fact that he had entered into the Licence Deed with the petitioner for use of the terrace of the above said property. The sole contention of the respondent No. 1 is that he had now sold this business to respondent No. 2 pursuant to the authority given to him under clause 14 of the agreement. The business was sold by him to respondent No. 2 in the year 2007 and since then, the respondent No. 2 has been using the said property and paying the rent. It is submitted that pursuant to his agreement with respondent No. 2, all the business, assets relating to this telecom tower has been transferred to him and, therefore, the said contract is no more binding upon him and the petition is liable to be dismissed.