- (1.) The defence of the respondent to this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is two-fold: that the claim of the petitioner is generically incapable of being arbitrable; and, that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties.
(2.) The respondent says that since the petitioner claims to be the superior lessor or licensor in respect of a property and seeks a dispute pertaining to the licensed premises to be adjudicated upon, the claim has to be regarded as one under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and, as such, incapable of adjudication in course of an arbitral reference. The respondent relies, in this context, on the view expressed by a single Bench of this court in the judgment Shyam Retails (India) Private Limited v. Bajaj Infracon Private limited, 2014 4 CalHN 73 which was based on a previous unreported judgment of the same Bench in CO No. 3084 of 2009 (Fingertips Solutions Private Limited v. Dhanashree Electronics Limited) of December 7, 2011.
(3.) The matter pertains to a particular space at a popular mall known as City Centre in Salt Lake. The petitioner claims to be entitled to the said space at Unit No. E-106 at the said mall and claims that the petitioner or its predecessor-ininterest had granted a licence to Bennett, Coleman & Co. Limited in respect of the said premises. Bennett Coleman carried on business at the said unit under the name and style of Planet M. Pursuant to a slump sale, the entirety of the business pertaining to a Planet M was transferred by Bennett Coleman in favour of the respondent herein. There is no dispute that the respondent pays the monthly licence fees in respect of such unit to the petitioner, but the respondent claims that such payment is on the basis of an oral licence.;