BRAINVISA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Vs. SUBHASH GAIKWAD (HUF)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings have been instituted under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) An agreement was entered into between the Applicant and the Respondent on 30 May 2009. Under the agreement, the Respondent as licensor agreed to grant to the Applicant as licensee, a licence to use and occupy certain premises for a period of five years, commencing from 1 October 2010 until 31 December 2014. The date of the commencement of the licence was 1 January 2010. The agreement contemplated a lock in period of 36 months. The licence fee was to be Rs.21.15 lakhs per month. Clause 6 of the Agreement provided for a security deposit of Rs.2,11,50,000/- which was to be free of interest. The deposit was to remain with the licensor during the term of leave and licence and was liable to be refunded on the expiry of the term or on early termination against the licensor handing over possession. If the licensor failed to refund the security deposit, despite the licensee being ready to hand over possession, the deposit was to carry interest at 12% per annum. An arbitration agreement was contained in Clause 17 of the Agreement which reads as follows :

(3.) There is no dispute about the factual position that the applicant was never put in possession of the premises. The applicant addressed a letter dated 19 February 2010, recording that as a result of certain disputes which had arisen between the Respondent and the members of the family, the applicant had not been placed in actual physical possession. In a reply dated 19 March 2010, the Respondent's Advocate accepted that the relatives had blocked the right of way to the property, but stated that it was the duty of the Respondent to ensure that the right of way was not obstructed. By a letter dated 16 April 2010, the applicant invoked arbitration and suggested the name of a sole arbitrator.