IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.11.2011 Arb. Case No.157 of 2010 (O&M) Jay Dee Leather Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Small Industries and Export ...Respondents Corporation Limited CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Naveen Sharma & Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 27 of Letter of Allotment dated 25.6.2007 issued to the Petitioner in respect of Plot No.28 situated at Industrial Focal Point, Jalandhar (Annexure A-3), accepting transfer of plot initially allotted to M/s ABC Leathers on 08.08.2000. A conveyance deed was earlier executed in favour of M/s ABC Leathers. The said transfer letter has an arbitration clause, which reads as under: “27. In the event of any difference or dispute arising between you and the Corporation in connection with or concerning the observance of the terms and conditions of allotment or interpretation thereof, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director, Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited (PSIEC), who may decide the dispute himself or nominate some Arb. Case No.157 of 2010 (O&M) other Officer to do so. The decision of the Arbitrator or his Nominee for the purpose shall be final and binding on both the parties.” It is pointed out by the petitioner that a sum of Rs.10,05,338/- was deposited on account of extension fee and maintenance charges. It is also pointed out that apart from the said amount, Rs.6,58,273/- was also deposited in respect of Common Effluent Thermal Plant (CETP) charges, which amount is not payable to the respondents, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the same. Earlier, M/s ABC Leather served a notice dated 19.08.2008 calling upon the Corporation to refund the amount alleged to be illegally recovered from the said Company. However, another notice was served on behalf of the petitioner on 22.08.2009 to the same effect. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has filed a claim petition (Annexure A-9) before the Managing Director, but since the claim was not adjudicated upon, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In reply, it has been asserted that at the time of transfer of plot, the transferor of the petitioner has deposited the amounts of Rs.6,60,032/-, Rs.3,45,306/- & Rs. 6,58,273/- towards extension fee, maintenance charges and CETP charges respectively. It was on deposit of the said amounts, the plot was transferred in favour of the petitioner. There was an undertaking filed on behalf of the transferor and transferee undertaking to make the payment of all the outstanding dues or such amount as may be due or become payable against the plot at any later stage. It is, thus, contended that since the transferor has deposited the outstanding amount in terms of claim of the Corporation, the petitioner is estopped to dispute such charges and that the claim is unwarranted. 2 Arb. Case No.157 of 2010 (O&M) The plot was transferred in favour of the petitioner on 25.06.2007 vide communication Annexure A-3. The amount claimed by the petitioner in the present petition as disputed amount, was deposited in the month of May, 2007 i.e. just before the permission was granted. It is, thus, obvious that such deposit was condition precedent for allowing the transfer. Once the petitioner or its transferor has deposited the amount, as demanded by the Corporation as a pre-condition for allowing transfer, the petitioner is estopped to dispute the levy and charging of the said amount. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed, as there is no dispute, as claimed by the petitioner. 17.11.2011 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3