08 April 2024 Arbitration Law >> Business & Commercial Law   |   Dispute with Tenant/Landlord >> Property & Real Estate  

A Delhi Court has asserted its jurisdiction in a case concerning a Unit Buyer Agreement between Anju Jain and Ankit Saggi (Petitioners) and M/s. WTC NOIDA Development (Respondent). The agreement involved a flat purchase in World Trade Center, Noida.

The crux of the dispute revolved around unpaid rent. While the agreement mandated rent/returns from April 2019 to April 2022, the Respondent stopped payments after the stipulated period. The Petitioners, despite having paid the full consideration for the flat, did not receive rent. After issuing a notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and receiving no response, the Petitioners filed a petition with the Delhi Court.

The Respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction, citing an arbitration clause in the agreement that specified New Delhi as the venue. However, the Court, through a meticulous analysis of the agreement, concluded that Clause 17.3 (granting Noida Courts jurisdiction) was subject to the arbitration clause (17.2) which designated New Delhi as the seat of arbitration. This distinction between venue and seat was crucial.

The Court's reasoning drew upon previous judgments, including Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. v. Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) and Yassh Deep Builders LLP v. Sushil Kumar Singh (2024). These cases established that ‘seat of arbitration’ determines the Court's jurisdiction for petitions under Section 11 of the Act.

In consequence, the Court rejected the Respondent's objection and appointed Mr. Devashish Bharuka as the sole arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and its rules.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996