M. D. CREATIONS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dtd. 2/8/2022 passed by sole arbitrator in Ashok Kumar Gupta versus M.D creations and others (arising out of AP No. 320 of 2021) dismissing the prayer of the petitioner under Sec. 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party-claimant is the owner in respect of a commercial space being shop No.4 lying and situated within premises No. 28/2, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700017 measuring more or less 600 Sq ft. The petitioner no.2 and 3 carries a partnership business of ready-made garments and accessories under the name and style of M.D Creations (Petitioner no.1). The petitioners where inducted by the opposite party-claimant in the aforesaid premises for carrying on their business of ready-made garments under a leave and license agreement which was renewed from time to time since 30/5/2016 and lastly renewed on 27/6/2019. Invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement dtd. 27/6/2019, the opposite party filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 which was allowed vide order dtd. 7/10/2021 passed in AP No. 320 of 2021 and sole arbitrator was appointed. The opposite party-claimant filed statement of claim before the arbitrator as well as an application under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petitioners also filed their statement in defence along with counter claim. In the proceedings before the learned arbitrator the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act raising objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and for dismissal of the arbitral reference and alternatively for impounding of agreement dtd. 27/6/2019 and sending the said agreement for stamping and registration before the concerned authority. Upon considering the materials on record and hearing the parties the application of the petitioners under Sec. 16 of the Act was dismissed.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned arbitrator, the petitioners have filed the present revision.