Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial...
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment.
The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the initial lease deed into the new agreement.
The arbitration clause, originally present in the initial lease deed, was a focal point of the dispute. By reading both documents together, the High Court found that the parties had unmistakably intended for the arbitration clause to be carried over into the deed of assignment.
Brief Facts:
Tata Communications Limited (Petitioner) owner of a plot of land located in Kolkata leased this plot to Respondent no. 2 under a lease deed for business purposes. Due to repeated breaches of obligations under the initial lease deed, the parties entered into a tripartite agreement, known as the deed of assignment, which involved Rudrapriya Constructions LLP (Respondent no. 1) continuing the business of event management, food court, and ceremonial functions. Disputes arose between the parties which made the Petitioner to terminate both agreements on 18 December 2023 primarily due to non-payment of lease rentals.
On 15 February 2024, the Petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act invoking the arbitration clause specified in the initial lease deed and the deed of assignment. The Respondents did not respond to this notice. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator.
In response to the application, Respondent no. 1 raised an objection and argued that the deed of assignment does not contain an arbitration clause since it was not explicitly incorporated.
The Petitioner contended that, when reading the deed of assignment in conjunction with the initial lease deed, it is evident that the arbitration clause in Clause 19.3 of the initial lease deed should be considered incorporated into the deed of assignment. The Petitioner argued that the mutual intention of the parties was to resolve disputes through arbitration, and the deed of assignment is not an independent document but should be viewed as interconnected with the initial lease deed.
Clause 19.3 of the initial lease deed provides as follows:
“19.3: Dispute resolution- (a) Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Lease Deed (including a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this Lease Deed or the consequences of its nullity) shall be sought to be resolved and settled amicably between the parties, within 15 (Fifteen) Business Days of written notice of such dispute arising, failing which it shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 …………..”
Observations by the High Court:
The issue before the High Court was whether an arbitration clause from an initial lease deed could be incorporated into a subsequent deed of assignment by reference. The initial lease deed contained a detailed arbitration clause, outlined in Clause 19.3, which provided a mechanism for dispute resolution. This included the appointment of an arbitrator, the conduct of proceedings in English, and the specification that the arbitration would take place in Kolkata. The clause also specified that the arbitration award would be final and binding, and that the costs would be borne equally by the parties.
The deed of assignment, which was executed subsequent to the initial lease deed, contained provisions that confirmed the terms and conditions of the initial lease deed would apply to the assignment, except for the revised terms specifically recorded in the deed of assignment. Notably, the deed of assignment referenced the initial lease deed but did not explicitly incorporate the arbitration clause from the initial lease deed.
The High Court examined Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act which addresses the incorporation of an arbitration clause from one document into another by reference.
According to Section 7(5), a reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause can constitute an arbitration agreement if the reference is such that it makes the arbitration clause part of the contract. The High Court noted that for incorporation by reference to be effective, the reference must be clear and indicate an intention to include the arbitration clause in the contract. Additionally, the arbitration clause must be suitable for resolving disputes under the new contract and should not contradict its terms.
The High Court that there is need for a clear and specific reference to incorporate an arbitration clause from another document. It reiterated that a general reference to another document does not automatically incorporate its arbitration clause. Instead, there must be a deliberate intent to adopt the arbitration clause which must reflect the parties' mutual agreement to subject their disputes to arbitration as stipulated in the referenced document.
The High Court further highlighted that the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause should be determined through the principles of construction, evaluating whether the reference to the initial lease deed was meant to include its entire content, including the arbitration clause, into the deed of assignment.
It noted that Recital D of the deed of assignment explicitly stated that the assignment was based on mutual discussions and was made with reference to the terms of the initial lease deed as well as the modified terms of the assignment deed. Clause 1.1 of the deed of assignment confirmed that the terms and conditions of the initial lease deed, except for those specifically revised, would apply to the deed of assignment. This included the arbitration clause.
Clause 13 of the deed of assignment made modifications to certain sub-clauses of Clause 19 of the initial lease deed but left the arbitration clause unchanged. The High Court observed that, when reading both the initial lease deed and the deed of assignment together, it was clear that the entirety of Clause 19 including the arbitration clause was incorporated into the deed of assignment. The High Court reasoned that the parties intended to retain the arbitration clause as part of the new agreement given that other sub-clauses of Clause 19 remained unaffected.
The High Court further reasoned that the incorporation of the arbitration clause was consistent with the parties' commercial intent and the nature of the documents. Both the initial lease deed and the deed of assignment were interconnected, and the arbitration clause was not inconsistent with the new terms. The High Court rejected any contention that the arbitration clause should be excluded from the deed of assignment and held that the intention of the parties at the time of executing the deed of assignment was to retain the arbitration clause.
Additionally, the High Court dismissed arguments from the Respondents that the incorporation of the arbitration clause was not valid. It distinguished the present case from previous decisions noting that those cases either involved different factual circumstances or did not address the specific issue of inter-linked documents incorporating arbitration clauses. The High Court found that the deed of assignment, by incorporating the initial lease deed, included the arbitration clause by clear intent and mutual agreement.
The bench held that:
“On a proper construction of the deed of assignment which is inter-connected and inter-related with the initial lease deed, the parties obviously intended the arbitration clause to be incorporated in the deed of assignment. This is the only imputed mutual intention of the parties which can be arrived at on a combined reading of both the documents. Both documents are commercial documents and require to be read together. The parties were dealing at arm's length. It is not possible to severe the two documents. It is true that the rationale behind seeking a specific reference necessary to incorporate an arbitration clause is that the parties are precluded from bringing a dispute before Court, an arbitration agreement has to be a written agreement and an arbitration agreement is of a different nature from other clauses as it constitutes a self- contained collateral contract. Nevertheless, the above construction is so obvious that the parties must have not only formed an intent of the same but are deemed to have agreed to specifically have incorporated the arbitration agreement when executing the deed of assignment.”
Consequently, the High Court allowed the application. It ordered that Justice Indira Banerjee (Retired), Supreme Court of India, be appointed as the Nominee Arbitrator, provided she communicated her consent within three weeks.
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr.
Case Number: AP/77/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Senior Advocate Mr. Altamas Alim, Advocate Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Advocate Mr. L. R. Mondal, Advocate
Date of Judgment: 5.09.2024