INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED Vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
December 17,2014
INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHARAT BHUSHAN BANSAL V. UTTAR PRADESH SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR [REFERRED TO]CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS REWA VS. RATAN SINGH HANS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. TIPPER CHAND [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANIBAI GUPTA VS. COLLECTOR JABALPUR [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA MARKETING LIMITED SAHU JAIN SERVICES LIMITED K B PARSAI BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK:UNION OF INDIA:LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DAMODAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED VS. STERLITE INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL PUSHP ENTERPRISES VS. D R CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MEHUL CONSTRUCTION CO [REFERRED TO]
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RANI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUN VS. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
FIRM ASHOK TRADERS VS. GURUMUKH DAS SALUJA [REFERRED TO]
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS. ANAND CO OP SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE VS. DINA NATH [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD VS. PAMPA HOTELS LTD [REFERRED TO]
S N PRASAD VS. MONNET FINANCE LTD [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P. DASARATHARAMA REDDY COMPLEX VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RANJEET CONSTRUCTION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
FORTUNE GRAND MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-69] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals are directed by the appellant against the common impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2007 passed in writ petition (c) No. 2015 of 2001 and C.M. (M) No.553/2007 by the High Court of Delhi, urging various facts and legal grounds and raising two substantial questions of law which read thus:-
a) Whether the arbitration proceedings can be continued between the International Amusement Limited and the India Trade Promotion Organisation
b) Whether the Estate Officer appointed as Arbitrator is the correct forum
Necessary brief facts are stated hereunder with a view to find out whether the questions of law framed in these appeals would arise for our consideration.
(3.)The appellant herein was running an amusement park in Pragati Maidan, New Delhi since the year 1984, which was well known as "Appu Ghar". The land for the purpose was initially allotted to the appellant by India Trade Promotion Organisation (for short 'the ITPO) on licence basis as the lease between the Central Government and the ITPO was still pending and as such permanent allotment of the land could not be made in favour of the appellant. Only as an administrative measure, the license agreements were entered into between the appellant and the ITPO. The appellant claimed that it was the permanent allottee of the land for running the amusement park on the similar lines as were allotted in favour of the Statutory Corporations/Instrumentalities of the State and Central Government. It was only on the assurance of the Land & Development Office (for short "the L&DO"), Ministry of Urban Development and ITPO that the appellant made huge amount of investment for establishing and running "Appu Ghar". The last agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.11.1995. In the said agreement, arbitration clauses 27 and 28 were incorporated, which are extracted hereunder :-
"27. The licensed premises are public premises as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and fall within the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, Pragati Maidan.
28. In case of any dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement the disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman, India Trade Promotion Organisation or his nominee whose decision/award shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties. Application for reference to arbitration shall be made by either party within two months of arising of the dispute."
(2.)These appeals are directed by the appellant against the common impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2007 passed in writ petition (c) No. 2015 of 2001 and C.M. (M) No.553/2007 by the High Court of Delhi, urging various facts and legal grounds and raising two substantial questions of law which read thus:-
a) Whether the arbitration proceedings can be continued between the International Amusement Limited and the India Trade Promotion Organisation
b) Whether the Estate Officer appointed as Arbitrator is the correct forum
Necessary brief facts are stated hereunder with a view to find out whether the questions of law framed in these appeals would arise for our consideration.
(3.)The appellant herein was running an amusement park in Pragati Maidan, New Delhi since the year 1984, which was well known as "Appu Ghar". The land for the purpose was initially allotted to the appellant by India Trade Promotion Organisation (for short 'the ITPO) on licence basis as the lease between the Central Government and the ITPO was still pending and as such permanent allotment of the land could not be made in favour of the appellant. Only as an administrative measure, the license agreements were entered into between the appellant and the ITPO. The appellant claimed that it was the permanent allottee of the land for running the amusement park on the similar lines as were allotted in favour of the Statutory Corporations/Instrumentalities of the State and Central Government. It was only on the assurance of the Land & Development Office (for short "the L&DO"), Ministry of Urban Development and ITPO that the appellant made huge amount of investment for establishing and running "Appu Ghar". The last agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.11.1995. In the said agreement, arbitration clauses 27 and 28 were incorporated, which are extracted hereunder :-
"27. The licensed premises are public premises as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and fall within the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, Pragati Maidan.
28. In case of any dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement the disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman, India Trade Promotion Organisation or his nominee whose decision/award shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties. Application for reference to arbitration shall be made by either party within two months of arising of the dispute."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.