SURUJ ZAMAL Vs. GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted this application under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") for appointment of an Arbitrator. The dispute between the parties relates to non-payment of rent. In this regard the petitioner's counsel has referred to Clause 22 of the Lease Deed dtd. 9/7/2014, which lays down a mechanism for adjudication of disputes by way of Arbitration. Clause 22 of the Lease Deed is as follows-

(3.) The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had executed a Lease Deed with the Aircel Companies respondent for installation of a Mobile Tower on a plot of land measuring 2100 sq. feet of 3 Kathas 9 Lechas covered by Dag No.183 of Patta No.60, located in the village Khataniapara under Dhula Police Station in Darrang district. The Aircel Companies sold its infrastructure division to Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. (CNIL). Thereafter, the CNIL was acquired/owned by the GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (GIL), the present respondent. As per Clause 22 of the Lease Deed, any dispute or claim between the parties arising out of the agreement or it's implementation etc. was to be referred to the arbitration of a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act. Though Clause 22 of the Lease Agreement stated that the arbitration would be held at Mumbai, the Lease Deed having been executed in Assam and as the cause of action had arisen in Assam, the petitioner submitted an Arbitration Notice dtd. 25/10/2023 to appoint a Guwahati based Arbitrator, for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. As the respondents did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present application for appointment of an Arbitrator.