LexINTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED versus INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION &ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1281 INTERNATIONALAMUSEMENT LIMITED A v. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION &ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 11474of2014) DECEMBER 17, 2014 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 B s. 11 (6) -Appointment of arbitrator-Agreement between the c appellant running amusement park and ITPO for allotment of land on licence basis-As per clause 28 of the agreement, any dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement was to be referred to sole arbitration of the Chairman of ITPO or his nominee whose decision/award shall be final - After expiry of licence period, ITPO issued a notice u/s.4A of PP D (E of U O)Act, 1971 to the appellant to evict from the land of its unauthorised occupation -Application for arbitration filed by appellant - Estate Officer rejected the application on the ground that after expiry of licence period, appellant· became unauthorised occupant and there was no dispute between E parties that could be agitated as raised by appellant and that the Estate Officer exercises his jurisdiction as provided under the provisions of PP Act - Held: s. 2(3) of Arbitration Act protects the existing laws, both common law as well as statutory Jaw under which some disputes cannot be made F subject matter of arbitration - s.15 rlw s.5 and 7 of PP Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Estate Officer appointed uls.3 of PP Act to deal with the application that is filed by ITPO to evict unauthorised occupants from public premises - s. 15 further bars and prohibits any court from entertaining G any suit or proceeding for eviction from the premises as provided ulclauses (a) to (e) of s.15- In view thereof, clause 28 in the licence agreement is not an arbitration agreement 1281 H 1282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A between the parties - Therefore, the appointment of an arbitrator by the nominee of the Chief Justice was rightly rejected by High Court - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-ss.2(3), 3, 5and15. B c p E F G H Konkan Railway Corporation. Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co. (2000) 7 SCC 201 : 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 563 ; Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 388 : 2002 (1) SCR 728 ; SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618 : 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 688 ; Maharshi Dayanand University v. Anand Coop. UC Society Ltd. and Am: (2007) 5 SCC 295 : 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 105 ; S.N. Prasad, Hitek Industries (Bihar) Ltd. v. Monnet Finance Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 320 : 2010 (13) SCR 207; Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Pampa Hotels Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 425 ; Kamal Pushp Enterprises v. D.R. Construction Company (2000) 6 .sec 659 : 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 20 ; Firm Ashok Traders & Anr. Ii. Gurumukh Das Saluja & Ors. (2004) 3 sec 155 : 2004 (1) SCR 404 ; Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank (1990) 4 sec 406 : 1990 (3) SCR 649 ; Haryana Telecom Limited v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (1999) 5 SCC 688 : 1999 (3) SCR 861 ; P Dasaratharama Reddy Complex v. Government of Karnataka & Anr. (2014) 2 SCC 201 ; Mysore Construction Company v. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ILR 2000 KAR 4953 ; K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors. Chief Conservator of Forests, Rewa v. Ratan Singh Hans AIR 1967 SC 166 : 1966 SCR 158 ; Rukmanibai Gupta v. The Collector, Jabalpur (1980) 4 SCC 556 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Tipper Chand INTERNATIONALAMUSEMENT LTD. v. INDIATRADE 1283 PROMOTION ORGANISATION (1980) 2 SCC 341 ; State of Orissa v. Damodar A Das (1996) 2 sec 216 : 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 800 ; Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Kanpur(1992) 2 SCC 166 ; State of Maharashtra v. Ranjeet Construction AIR 1986 Born 76 ; Mallikarjun v. B Gulbarga University (2004) 1 SCC 372 : 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 272 ; Punjab State v. Dina Nath (2007) 5 SCC 28 : 2007 (6) SCR 536 - relied on. Russell, on Arbitration 19th Edition, page 59; c Russell, on Arbitration (21 51 Edn.)- referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 563 relied on. Para 10 2002 (1) SCR 728 relied on. Para 10 D 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 688 relied on. Para 11 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 105 relied on. Para 11 2010 (13) SCR 207 · relied on. Para 11 (2010) 5 sec 425 relied on. Para 12 E 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 20 relied on. Para 12 2004 (1) SCR 404 relied on. Para 12 1990 (3) SCR 649 relied on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.