Two Arbitration Petitions For Same Relief Cannot Be Filed: Chhattisgarh High Court

Brief Facts

This petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

The applicant is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act 1973. The society comprises of lease owner traders of shops in Himalaya Complex, Supela Bhilai. The society has been formed to secure and promote the interest of the shop lease owners.

The members of the applicant Society are the lessees of the respondent, a registered private Company and all the individual members have entered into lease agreement for transfer of individual shop.

In the general body meeting of the applicant Society held on 25.08.2023 the society was authorized to take necessary steps for appointment of arbitrator to settle the dispute between lessee members and the respondent. It was decided that necessary steps would be taken for issuance of notice and approaching the Hon'ble High Court if required.

Contentions:

The petitioner submitted that the Municipal Corporation Bhilai has not renewed the lease granted to the respondent on the ground that the respondent has carried out illegal construction without the permission of the Municipal Corporation. The applicant-Society has been regularly paying the maintenance and premium amount, however the respondent has not maintained the complex satisfactorily.

It was further submitted that even if there is no renewal agreement or extension agreement is executed till date between the parties after the expiry of lease agreement, the Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration clause survives the termination of the main contract.

It also submitted that despite being approached several times the respondent has taken no steps to appoint an arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in compliance of clause- 14 of the lease agreement. The lease deed provide for determination of disputes by an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, therefore, the applicant has preferred the instant application for appointment of an Arbitrator.

Per contra, the respondent submitted that one Meharban Singh who is a member of the applicant Society has filed the instant petition through society and has also filed a separate individual arbitration application for the same relief which is also pending before this Hon'ble Court.

It was submitted that therefore two petitions are filed by Meharbaan Singh, one in individual capacity and one through society, for claiming the same relief, thus the instant petition is not maintainable on this count alone.

It further submitted that since the agreement the agreement between the parties has already expired on 21.03.2021 and no renewal agreement or extension agreement is executed till date between the present parties. Therefore, after expiry of lease agreement between the parties on 21.03.2021, at this belated stage, no application for appointment of arbitrator relating to expired agreement between the parties is maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Decision of The Court:

The court asked the petitioner why the society has filed this petition when individual members have been authorised to file the petition.

The petitioner replied that the present petition has been filed by the society to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.

The court observed that since another petition being ARBR No. 41/2023 has already been filed by one Meharban Singh in an individual capacity, who is also stated to be a member of the applicant Society, this petition is not maintainable as two petitions for the same relief, cannot be entertained.

Case Title: Himalaya Complex Vyapari Kalyan Sangh Supela Bhilai Society Through Its Joint Secretary versus Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Through Its Chariman

Case Number: ARBR No. 11 of 2024

Date Of Judgment: 02/12/2024

Click Here To read/Download The Order