LAXMI PAT SURANA Vs. FUTURE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has applied under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is a licensee under South-Eastern Railways, in respect of an immovable property by virtue of an agreement dated April 16, 2004. The petitioner has constructed a shopping mall on a portion of such land and sub-licensed a portion of the constructed area to Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited. The petitioner and Pantaloon Retail India Limited had entered into the sub-licensee agreement dated January 30, 2007. Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited had then been put into possession on October 1, 2007. Pursuant to an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated August 24, 2010, Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited had been demerged. By the letter dated September 15, 2010, Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited had informed the petitioner that by virtue of the order of the demerger, Future Merchandise Limited should be subrogated in its place. The various legal entities and undertakings of Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited underwent demergers and ultimately, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had emerged as the successor in interest of Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited had defaulted in payment of the license fees. Disputes and differences arose between the parties to the agreement for sub-licensee. An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been filed being AP No. 1095 of 2011. In such application, an order dated March 21, 2012 had been passed requiring the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 6.50 crores with its advocate on record. The petitioner had invoked Section 21 of the Act of 1996 and referred the disputes to arbitration. By an order dated March 30, 2012, the disputes had been referred to arbitration. The learned Arbitrator had entered into reference The petitioner had filed an application for interim award and an award for delivery of khas, vacant and peaceful possession. The learned arbitrator had passed an interim award on April 8, 2013 directing khas, peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner. The interim award has not been challenged by the respondents. Despite such interim award the respondents has not made over possession of the premises to the petitioner. The respondents are in occupation and deducting tax as source in respect of the license fees payable under the Sub-licensee Agreement.