w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Knowledge Podium Systems Pvt. Ltd. v/s S.M. Professional Services Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- C P SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199DL1999PTC101718

Company & Directors' Information:- T SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2004PTC127138

Company & Directors' Information:- I SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2003PTC118851

Company & Directors' Information:- A K M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018546

Company & Directors' Information:- S T SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1989PLC047210

Company & Directors' Information:- KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400HR2008PTC038477

Company & Directors' Information:- KNOWLEDGE PODIUM SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2011PTC219451

Company & Directors' Information:- M G F SERVICES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910DL1987PLC029599

Company & Directors' Information:- SM CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS1981PLC007406

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- S J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1988PTC034427

Company & Directors' Information:- W B M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC017764

Company & Directors' Information:- E M SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090MH2001PTC131924

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L51226WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L93000WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1994PTC078529

Company & Directors' Information:- A K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899MH1986PTC268851

Company & Directors' Information:- B V SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC050946

Company & Directors' Information:- A R G SYSTEMS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC062621

Company & Directors' Information:- H P PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PTC181347

Company & Directors' Information:- I S A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140JH1995PTC006387

Company & Directors' Information:- E I C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022426

Company & Directors' Information:- S SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC111270

Company & Directors' Information:- SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059377

Company & Directors' Information:- A C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070774

Company & Directors' Information:- H S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2014PTC074321

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2010PTC212026

Company & Directors' Information:- S M KNOWLEDGE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80101WB2010PTC150485

Company & Directors' Information:- KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80903HR2013PTC050658

Company & Directors' Information:- V S S SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U03000TZ1997PTC007933

Company & Directors' Information:- I L SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18100GJ1999PTC037104

Company & Directors' Information:- A V SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909PN2001PTC015788

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC168484

Company & Directors' Information:- N D T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1996PTC104744

Company & Directors' Information:- O P T SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL1996PTC083397

Company & Directors' Information:- S P P S SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033732

Company & Directors' Information:- P P SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1991PTC051423

Company & Directors' Information:- A P T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29219TG1999PTC031903

Company & Directors' Information:- L S I SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL2000PTC105666

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1993PTC003956

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC230905

Company & Directors' Information:- H B S SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048198

Company & Directors' Information:- S M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC133535

Company & Directors' Information:- U C SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL1997PTC084267

Company & Directors' Information:- A N Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071457

Company & Directors' Information:- N B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056484

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00894KA1985PTC006606

Company & Directors' Information:- L C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55200PB2012PTC036880

Company & Directors' Information:- C I SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200TG1983PTC003915

Company & Directors' Information:- M J SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2005PTC150591

Company & Directors' Information:- R R SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1999PTC098142

Company & Directors' Information:- M. V. S SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2013PTC252172

Company & Directors' Information:- C N C SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72900DL1999PTC100476

Company & Directors' Information:- S D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1998PTC005293

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND B SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC145775

Company & Directors' Information:- M B M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30006DL1988PTC030404

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA1996PTC019645

Company & Directors' Information:- C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31103TN2009PTC071155

Company & Directors' Information:- R M I SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2011PTC060246

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51900MH1989PTC054373

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193917

Company & Directors' Information:- M E R I T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1999PTC118445

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2009PTC293633

Company & Directors' Information:- W & S SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910TN2005PTC055568

Company & Directors' Information:- M. Y. T. SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74990TG2016PTC110104

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC139742

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040DL1996PTC075731

Company & Directors' Information:- S E I SYSTEMS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = L74899DL1994PLC061731

Company & Directors' Information:- D C S SYSTEMS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100MP2000PLC014224

Company & Directors' Information:- I T G SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL1999PTC098431

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1946PLC000976

Company & Directors' Information:- I O SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG1998PTC029166

Company & Directors' Information:- S E C O M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909HR2009PTC039084

Company & Directors' Information:- U M S SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ1982PLC001208

Company & Directors' Information:- A T E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH2001PTC132923

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC078465

Company & Directors' Information:- G I SERVICES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PLC184088

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992KL1988PLC005094

Company & Directors' Information:- D M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100DL1999PTC101817

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50200DL2004PTC124035

Company & Directors' Information:- B H SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2012FTC227035

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100UP1995PTC017784

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2003PTC096700

Company & Directors' Information:- A R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2001PTC109578

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PTC092554

Company & Directors' Information:- L B D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00359BR1991PTC004694

Company & Directors' Information:- KNOWLEDGE @ HOME.COM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033896

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74140AS2011PTC010601

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 Z E SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2006PTC039105

Company & Directors' Information:- J B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KL1997PTC011510

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013531

Company & Directors' Information:- B I N A R Y SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC103072

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND S SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH1996PTC103819

Company & Directors' Information:- M C SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013532

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND M SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32101UP1993PTC015352

Company & Directors' Information:- D & D SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC093967

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037072

Company & Directors' Information:- R G B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1998PTC040485

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100TG1996PTC023469

Company & Directors' Information:- E-KNOWLEDGE SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100KA2007PTC043195

Company & Directors' Information:- K R T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392TN2002PTC048704

Company & Directors' Information:- S C L SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63012TN2001PTC046650

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1998PTC093545

Company & Directors' Information:- G P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037683

Company & Directors' Information:- B & D SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100OR1996PTC004611

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85320WB2003PTC095712

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. V. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999HR2014PTC052304

Company & Directors' Information:- G M E SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U71290DL1987PTC029758

Company & Directors' Information:- R B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31300RJ1990PTC005689

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U72501DL1998PTC096640

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044009

Company & Directors' Information:- E D H SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1991PTC045384

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2007PTC163701

Company & Directors' Information:- S.M. CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN2017PTC114103

Company & Directors' Information:- S S D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910RJ1996PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- H N G SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900RJ2012PTC040713

Company & Directors' Information:- I KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72500PN2014PTC151394

Company & Directors' Information:- F A SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100MH2004PTC148941

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2010PTC206211

Company & Directors' Information:- D S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923MH2012PTC226482

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH1981PTC024997

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND P SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC146918

Company & Directors' Information:- F F C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC153348

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. PROFESSIONAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2011PTC217915

Company & Directors' Information:- R. B. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC302692

Company & Directors' Information:- Q C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2013PTC148110

Company & Directors' Information:- G. K. SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2006PTC129225

Company & Directors' Information:- PODIUM SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2016PTC164429

Company & Directors' Information:- T G SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31403TN2006PTC061859

Company & Directors' Information:- B S K A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC198627

Company & Directors' Information:- S N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900JK2014PTC004110

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2013PTC034757

Company & Directors' Information:- I T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72400AS1999PTC005824

Company & Directors' Information:- Y Y SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200CH2015PTC035767

Company & Directors' Information:- R M E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC166470

Company & Directors' Information:- S L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2011PTC212261

Company & Directors' Information:- A Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC239759

Company & Directors' Information:- J N D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC264620

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC233958

Company & Directors' Information:- S & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC287145

Company & Directors' Information:- R D SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100DL2000PTC103462

Company & Directors' Information:- V C SYSTEMS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC111812

Company & Directors' Information:- A R J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2015PTC286948

Company & Directors' Information:- K B N SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64204DL1997PTC088904

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC234774

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC242159

Company & Directors' Information:- G W SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U79140DL2001PTC111194

Company & Directors' Information:- B 2 B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140HR2013PTC049213

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2007PTC041783

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. T. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900GJ2009PTC056248

Company & Directors' Information:- B 9 N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KL2012PTC032087

Company & Directors' Information:- V J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29242GJ2013PTC074510

Company & Directors' Information:- J S N D SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900GJ2011PTC065160

Company & Directors' Information:- N I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202KL2000PTC014355

Company & Directors' Information:- 7-A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2019PTC359011

Company & Directors' Information:- L K E SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2021PTC073635

Company & Directors' Information:- F I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC113001

Company & Directors' Information:- C R D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72300AS1988PTC003097

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC104743

Company & Directors' Information:- B I M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1974PTC002694

Company & Directors' Information:- T Q M SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1999PTC101341

Company & Directors' Information:- F C S SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100DL1997PTC090517

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1977PTC019880

Company & Directors' Information:- E R SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2008PTC061904

Company & Directors' Information:- M J B E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL2006PTC150832

Company & Directors' Information:- R & T SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC179617

Company & Directors' Information:- Q S Q SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109KA2000PTC026269

    CS(COMM). No. 377 of 2020

    Decided On, 25 January 2021

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

    For the Plaintiff: Shyam Kapadia, Vikram B. Trivedi, S.R. Trilokchandani, Priya Diwadkar, Kartik Nagarkatti, Advocates. For the Defendant: Saurav Agrawal, Madhav Misra, Harshavardhan Singh Rathore, Advocates.



Judgment Text

IA No.8471/20201. This application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint and for referring the parties to arbitration.2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,58,24,648/- being refund of the available interest-free refundable security deposit together with interest. A decree of mandatory injunction is also sought to handover the movables of the plaintiff which, it is stated, have been illegally detained by the defendant. Alternative relief of Rs.91,05,539/- by way of damages or compensation is also sought.3. Some of the relevant facts are that vide a Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017, the defendant leased to the plaintiff the office premises on the First Floor and Second Floor at 21, IT Park, Sahastradha Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand admeasuring 39,614 sq.ft. super built up area with 22 car parking slots in the building for nine years from 01.01.2017. Simultaneously, a Maintenance Agreement was also executed between the parties which was co-terminus with the Lease Deed for payment of fit out and maintenance charges for the said premises. As per the lease deed, there was a lock-in period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2022. The plaintiff deposited with the defendant, an interest free refundable deposit of Rs.1,90,14,720/- being 12 months rental under the Lease Deed, Rs.1,04,58,096/- being 12 months monthly fit out charges and Rs.57,04,416/- being annual maintenance charges respectively under the Maintenance Agreement.4. It is the case of the plaintiff that a Fresh Agreement was arrived at between the parties in respect of use and occupation of the said premises and maintenance thereof with effect from April 2018. It is stated that the terms and conditions of the Fresh Agreement were captured and agreed upon in emails dated 26.09.2018 and 15.10.2018 exchanged between the parties. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiff that the Lease Deed and the Maintenance Agreement stood substituted/novated on account of the said Fresh Agreement.5. It is stated that later it became commercially unviable for the plaintiff to retain the rented premises. It is stated that the plaintiff initiated negotiations with the defendant for reduction of rentals and maintenance with effect from April, 2019. However, it is stated that the defendant did not budge. On 17.01.2020, it is stated, the defendant illegally disconnected the electricity connection of the rented premises as means to coerce the plaintiff to make payments. It is stated that before the plaintiff could formally terminate the Fresh Agreement and remove its movables, assets, furniture, etc, lying in the rented premises and hand over vacant physical possession of the premises to the defendant, one of the employees of the plaintiff who was present at the rented premises at that time acting in concert with the defendant handed over the keys of the rented premises to the defendant without seeking authorization of the plaintiff.6. On 03.02.2020, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant whereby it terminated the Fresh Agreement for the reasons stated therein and also requested defendant No. 1 to adjust a sum of Rs. 61,02,584/- from the available interest-free refundable security deposit of Rs. 3,19,27,232/- and to refund the remaining interest-free refundable security deposit of Rs.2,58,24,648/-. The legal notice also sought grant of access to the authorised representative of the plaintiff to remove the movables and the server. Hence, the present suit.7. In the present application, the defendant/applicant has taken the stand that the plaintiff has failed to place on record the fact that the plaintiff was on 10.08.2020 served with an advance copy of the petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which has since been registered as Arbitration Petition No. 360/2020. The said arbitration petition is said to be pending.8. Essentially, the case of the defendant is that the registered Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017 and the Maintenance Agreement had a lock-in period of six years and was valid up to 31.12.2022. It is the case of the defendant that in terms of the Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017 and the Maintenance Agreement of the same date, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the outstanding rents and maintenance charges for the lock-in period i.e. upto 31.12.2022.9. It is further pleaded in the present application that the parties to the present lis have already chosen their forum for the resolution of disputes i.e. arbitration and as such, the present suit is not maintainable. It is pleaded that both the Lease Agreement dated 21.02.2017 and the Maintenance Agreement of the same date contain arbitration clauses and hence, the present application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of execution of the Lease Deed and the Maintenance Agreement were family held companies. The family has exited from the plaintiff company sometimes in September 2018 and a new management has taken over charge of the plaintiff company. It is strongly urged that there is a novation of Agreement and the original Lease Deed and the Maintenance Agreement dated 21.02.2017 stand superseded and novated in view of the terms and conditions settled upon in the emails dated 26.09.2018 and 15.10.2018. In the novated contract, there is no arbitration agreement and hence, the present application is misplaced.12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Young Achievers vs. IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 535, Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 531 and Booz Allen and Hamilton INC. vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 532.13. Learned counsel for the defendant has argued to the contrary. He states that only the agreed rental amount was agreed to be reduced in terms of the emails that were exchanged and all the other terms and conditions of the Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017 and the Maintenance Agreement remained unchanged. It is stated that the parties remain bound by the arbitration agreement. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia & Ors. vs. Durga Trading Corporation, 2020 SCC OnLine 1018 to plead that in these circumstances, this court need not dwell deep into the arguments of the plaintiff and the matter be referred to arbitration. It is also stated that in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator, the plaintiff keeps taking adjournments on the ground that the present application is pending in the present suit. Hence, he stresses that this court may decide the present application and appoint a learned Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties14. I may first look at the arbitration clause in the Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017. Clause 9.1 of the Lease Deed reads as follows:-“9.1 The Parties shall attempt in the first instance to resolve any dispute or difference arising in any way or manner out of, in relation to or in connection with this Lease Deed by conciliation. If such a dispute is not resolved through conciliation within thirty (30) days after commencement of discussions, the same shall be decided by arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the mutual consent of the Parties. The decision of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. The arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English Language. The place of arbitration shall be New Delhi.”15. A similar arbitration clause, namely, Clause 10.1 also exists in the Maintenance agreement dated 21.02.2017.16. It undoubtedly follows that in the original lease deed and the maintenance agreement, the parties have agreed to settle their disputes through arbitration.17. I may now look at the defence of the plaintiff to the present application. It has strongly been urged that on account of the subsequent novation of the contract through exchange of the emails dated 26.09.2018 and 15.10.2018, a new contract has come into being superseding the Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017 and the Maintenance Agreement of the same date.18. I may now look at the correspondence exchanged between the parties on the basis of which it is pleaded by the plaintiff that there was a novation of contract. On 26.09.2018, the plaintiff had written an e-mail to the defendant which reads as follows:-“Anil ji and Rajendra ji,Refer the discussion last evening again where is was agreed that SM will reduce billing from April 18 , in view of the financial constraints that KP is going thru and the slow down of its growth plans as it was originally envisaged . All other points were agreed and it was asked that the fitout charges should also reduce. Hence I am documenting the Understaning for confirmation so that billing could be closed in September and GST compliance be done.SM shall Bill only upto 60% of the 2nd floor area of 22172 sq ft. @ 42 rent, fixed fit out amortisation shall be billed For the above area @15 rupees per sq ft on 8 year basis CAM shall be billed @ rs 8 per sq ftFor cafeteria rs 20 per sq ft would be billed for the cafeteria services of the cafeteria space. Electricity will be paid directly at actualSince KP is not using campus parking, no billing shall be billed.SM shall not separate / divide the 2nd floor at the moment but shall try and continue its search to find a suitable tenant to make up for the loss of rent and KP shall have no objections to it. However, before bringing in any new client on 2nd floor KP shall have a first right of refusal to expand.KP shall not be using the FF other than the cafeteria on shared basis and SM shall try and find out other tenements to cover up on loss of rent.Regards Mukul”19. On 15.10.2018, the defendant replied to the said e-mail stating as follows:-“Hi Mukul,Following are the agreed terms for your convenience. We will get an addendum created as per the below....* KP will use the second floor up to 60% of the area. SM shall bill KP for the usage of the second floor as per the following...* Rent for 13,300 sq. ft. (60% of the 2nd floor area of 22172 sq. ft.) @ Rs. 42 /sq. ft.* Fit out amortization on 8 year basis for 13,300 sq. ft. (above area) @ Rs. 15 /sq. ft.* CAM for 13,300 sq. ft. (above area) @ Rs. 8 /sq. ft.* KP will use only the cafeteria on the first floor on the shared basis. SM shall bill @ Rs. 20 / sq. ft for the area of cafeteria as per actual floor area.* KP will not use the campus parking. SM shall not bill KP for the parking.* KP will pay for electricity as per consumption. SM will ensure that a dedicated meter is installed for measure the electricity usage of KP.We still need to discuss and finalize the following two items. Can we have a quick chat tomorrow whenever convenient?* Lock in period* DepositThanks and regards,Rajendra”20. It is admitted by the parties that based on these two documents, there was an adjustment of rents. The question is can it be said that on account of the exchange of these communications, the parties have rescinded the old agreement being the registered Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017 and the Maintenance Agreement of the same date and completely novated the contract.21. As noted above, the submission of the plaintiff is that on account of these two communications exchanged between the parties, the old contract got novated and was substituted by a new contract which does not have an arbitration agreement.22. In this context, reference may be had to Section 62 of the Contract Act which defines novation as follows:-“62. Effect of novation, rescission, and alteration of contract.—If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed.23. In this context, reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Construction and Ors. vs. Dr.Rameshchandra Ramnikalal Shah and Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 586 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-“9. We may, at this stage, refer to the provisions of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act which provides as under:“62. If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed.”This provision contains the principle of “novation” of contract.10. One of the essential requirements of “novation”, as contemplated by Section 62, is that there should be complete substitution of a new contract in place of the old. It is in that situation that the original contract need not be performed. Substitution of a new contract in place of the old contract which would have the effect of rescinding or completely altering the terms of the original contract, has to be by agreement between the parties. A substituted contract should rescind or alter or extinguish the previous contract. But if the terms of the two contracts are inconsistent and they cannot stand together, the subsequent contract cannot be said to be in substitution of the earlier contract.”24. Hence, a novation takes place only when there is a complete substitution of a new contract in place of the old. Do the facts of the present case warrant a conclusion that there was a novation of contract?25. I may first see the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows:-“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.Provided that where the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under sub-section (1), and the said agreement or certified copy is retained by the other party to that agreement, then, the party so applying shall file such application along with a copy of the arbitration agreement and a petition praying the court to call upon the other party to produce the original arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy before that court.(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”26. I may look at the latest judgment of the Supreme Court on Section 8 of the Arbitration Act in the case of Vidya Drolia and Ors. vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (supra). The Supreme court held as follows:-“2. A deeper consideration of the order of reference reveals that the issues required to be answered relate to two aspects that are distinct and yet interconnected, namely:(i) meaning of non-arbitrability and when the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of being resolved through arbitration; and(ii) the conundrum - “who decides” - whether the court at the reference stage or the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration proceedings would decide the question of non-arbitrability.The second aspect also relates to the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the court at the referral stage when an objection of non-arbitrability is raised to an application under Section 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996 (for short, the ‘Arbitration Act’).Xxx138. Discussion under the heading ‘Who decides Arbitrability?’ can be crystallized as under:(a) Ratio of the decision in Patel Engineering Ltd. on the scope of judicial review by the court while deciding an application under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act, post the amendments by Act 3 of 2016 (with retrospective effect from 23.10.2015) and even post the amendments vide Act 33 of 2019 (with effect from 09.08.2019), is no longer applicable.(b) Scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the court under Section 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act is identical but extremely limited and restricted.(c) The general rule and principle, in view of the legislative mandate clear from Act 3 of 2016 and Act 33 of 2019, and the principle of severability and competence-competence, is that the arbitral tribunal is the preferred first authority to determine and decide all questions of non-arbitrability. The court has been conferred power of “second look” on aspects of non-arbitrability post the award in terms of sub-clauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of Section 34(2)(a) or sub-clause (i) of Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act.(d) Rarely as a demurrer the court may interfere at the Section 8 or 11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie certain that thearbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny. The restricted and limited review is to check and protect parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is demonstrably ‘non-arbitrable’ and to cut off the deadwood. The court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable; when consideration in summary proceedings would be insufficient and inconclusive; when facts are contested; when the party opposing arbitration adopts delaying tactics or impairs conduct of arbitration proceedings. This is not the stage for the court to enter into a mini trial or elaborate review so as to usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal but to affirm and uphold integrity and efficacy of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.Xxx223. At the cost of repetition, we note that Section 8 of the Act mandates that a matter should not be referred to an arbitration by a court of law unless it finds that prima facie there is no valid arbitration agreement. The negative language used in the Section is required to be taken into consideration, while analyzing the Section. The Court should refer a matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, as laid down above. Therefore, the rule for the Court is ‘when in doubt, do refer’.Xxx229. Before we part, the conclusions reached, with respect to question no. 1, are:a. Sections 8 and 11 of the Act have the same ambit with respect to judicial interference.b. Usually, subject matter arbitrability cannot be decided at the stage of Sections 8 or 11 of the Act, unless it's a clear case of deadwood.c. The Court, under Sections 8 and 11, has to refer a matter to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator, as the case may be, unless a party has established a prima facie (summary findings) case of non-existence of valid arbitration agreement, by summarily portraying a strong case that he is entitled to such a finding.d. The Court should refer a matter if the vali

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

dity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, as laid down above, i.e., ‘when in doubt, do refer’.e. The scope of the Court to examine the prima facie validity of an arbitration agreement includes only:a. Whether the arbitration agreement was in writing? Orb. Whether the arbitration agreement was contained in exchange of letters, telecommunication etc?c. Whether the core contractual ingredients qua the arbitration agreement were fulfilled?d. On rare occasions, whether the subject-matter of dispute is arbitrable?”27. Hence for rejection of a Section 8 application, a party has to make out a prima facie case of non-existence of valid arbitration agreement, by summarily portraying a strong case. But when in doubt, the court has to refer the matter to arbitration. The court should refer the matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis.28. In the present case, in my opinion, as the facts noted above show, it cannot be prima facie said that there is a completely new contract and that the old registered Lease Deed dated 21.02.2017 read with the Maintenance Agreement of the same date have been novated and substituted by a completely new contract. The e-mail dated 15.10.2018 sent by the defendant merely agrees to reduction of rent. It does not specifically state that all the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed and the Maintenance Agreement stand superseded or novated. The issue would require deeper consideration and is best left to the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate upon.29. I, accordingly, allow the present application.30. I appoint Mr. Justice G. S. Sistani (Retd.) (Mobile No.+91-9871300034) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff will be at liberty to raise the plea about non-existence of an arbitration agreement before the Learned Arbitrator. It is left to the discretion of the Learned Arbitrator to fix his fees. The learned Arbitrator shall comply with mandatory stipulations.31. The application stands disposed of.CS (COMM) 377/2020In view of the above, the suit and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
O R