Calcutta High Court
Lgw Industries Limited vs Met Technologies Private Limited on 27 January, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OCD -3
ORDER SHEET
AP-COM/1078/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
LGW INDUSTRIES LIMITED
VS
MET TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 27th January, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. AryakDutt,Adv.
Mr. Dipankar Das, Adv.
Mr. RajashreeBhowmick, Adv.
.... for the petitioner
The Court:Affidavit of service is taken on record. The service through
speed post was not satisfactory. However, the Court took note of service by e-
mail. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was directed to effect
substituted service by making insertions in newspapers. Insertions in the Time
of India and Ei Samay have been made. Despite such substituted service, none
appears on behalf of the respondent. The court has to proceed ex-parte. This is
an application for appointment of an arbitrator.
The petitioner entered into a leave and license agreement with the
respondent for a period of 11 months. Such Leave and License agreement was
2
renewed from time to time and lastly on September 24, 2021. It is submitted
that the licensedpremises was attached by the Enforcement Directorate,
pursuant to an investigation against the respondent. However, the petitioner
has a claim of more than Rs. 73 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 18%
on account of unpaid license fees. The monthly licensefee was Rs. 9,89,350/-
together with applicable GST, maintenance, electricity charges and other
charges. Steps were not taken for renewal of the Leave and License. The leave
and license agreement stood terminated. Notice was issued by the petitioner.
The petitioner approached the respondent. The respondent did not pay the sum
demanded. Accordingly, a notice invoking arbitration was sent on December 2,
2023 and again by e-mail on September 30, 2024.
The fact that Leave and License agreement had been entered into
between the parties, is not in dispute. The same was renewed from time to time
and lastly on 24th September, 2021. The existence of an arbitration clause is
not in dispute. The invocation of arbitration is not in dispute. The dispute is
with regard to the claim for unpaid license fees and it is fairly submitted that
the licensed premises is now attached by the Enforcement Directorate.Hence,
no claim for recovery of possession has been made.
It appears that an arbitral tribunal comprising of three members, is
required to arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties. The dispute
resolution clause states as hereunder:-
3
“52:-Any dispute between the parties arising out of or connected with
this Agreement of Leave and license shall be referred to and finally
determined by arbitration, each party shall be entitled to nominate
one arbitrator and both the arbitrators nominated by both parties
shall jointly appoint a third arbitrator as Chairman. The Arbitration
shall be held as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 and shall be held in Kolkata. The arbitral award shall be
final and binding upon the parties.”
The petitioner has already nominated its arbitrator, namely, Mr. Raj
Mohan Chattaraj, learned Advocate, Calcutta High Court. Thus, Mr. Raj Mohan
Chattaraj will act as the petitioner’s nominee. Mr. V.V.V. Shastri, learned
advocate will act as the respondent’s nominee and both the learned arbitrators
shall nominate the third arbitrator, who shall be the presiding arbitrator
(Chairman as per the clause). The learned arbitrators shall make necessary
disclosure as per Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
learned Arbitrators shall fix their remuneration in terms of the schedule of the
said Act.
All points are left open. The parties shall raise all points before the
arbitral tribunal.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
TR/
[ad_1]
Source link