Suresh Shah vs. Hapid technology India private limited

 SUMMARY ON 

Suresh Shah vs Hipad Technology India Private Limited. (2020)

Suresh Shah vs Hipad Technology India Private Limited is a 2020 supreme court case. The decision was given by the court on the 25th of December 2020.The judgement was passed by Justice S.A Bobde, J.A.S Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian. It was an arbitration petition(civil) no(s). 08/2020.this case was set for seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the sublease deed dated on 14.11.2018. 

BACKGROUND

                          In this case, the petitioner, Suresh shah filed the petition under Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, seeking for a sole arbitrator as mentioned above. The Court found that the petitioner is a citizen of Kenya the clause qualifies as an ‘international commercial arbitration’. The petitioner asserted that the tenancy withinside the immediate case turned into know longer created under, neither is ruled with the aid of using a unique statute in which the tenant enjoys statutory safety and as such, there is no obstacle for resolving the dispute via arbitration.

                             So, in this case the arbitrability of the dispute under the transfer of property act, the court observed the sections 114 and 114(a) and observed that this case was somewhat similar to the judgement of the case Naddeo Lokman Lodhi vs.  Narmad Abai and others. So, the sections states that the landlord tenant is payable under transfer of property act and not payable under rent act.

REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE COURT

• UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882.

                                                          The court further observed and stated, if the dispute raised between the parties is determined under Transfer of property act, the landlord and the tenant can secure the possession under the jurisdiction. If there is an agreement to arbitration as made under section 114 and 114(A). Under the transfer of property act it could have secured with an arbitrator. 

UNDER RENTS ACT,1977.

                                                            Here, if the dispute raised between the landlord and the tenant is determined under the rent act notwithstanding the terms and conditions, would rather turn into an amenable case were the court will try to resolve it by eviction or tenancy. In this situation there may occur many questions in which if it was done by an agreement but also requires other aspects such as the Bonafide certificate etc... even if the case of eviction is still there. 

OVERALL ANALYSIS 

                                           So, the court observed the case and decided to resolve this dispute by appointing Justice Mukul Mudgal as the Sole arbitrator. As the main core purpose of this case was made out for the arbitration petition as at last the parties got a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute for the sublease deed.

CONCLUSION

The judgement ought to be explicitly examine inside the context of landlord-tenancy disputes below specific provisions of the transfer of property Act, 1882. Warning must be exercised in considering the character of the dispute below movement. The judgment cannot be extensively applied to mean that all provisions under the TP Act, 1882 are arbitrable.