b Q, $-23-26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + o.M.P.249l20Ll M/S NEW DELHI VAULTS LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus M/S l.T.C LTD ..... ResPondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. L.K.Bhushan and Mr.Gaurav Behl, Advocates. AND o.M.P.250/2011 M/S SUN SHINE ALLEY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with ' Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus ...,. Respondent Through: Mr.sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. L.K.Bhushan and Mr.Gaurav Behl, Advocates. AND 4 M/S I.T.C LTD o.M.P.25ll20L1 M/S ALI SHAH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus M/s r'r'c LrD rhroush: r;.i;l::,:?i3:ff1, sr.Advocate with Mr. L.K,Bhushan and Mr.Gaurav Behl, Advocates. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified 7 AND o.M.P.252l20LL DHARAM VIR CHAWLA ..... PCtitiONEr Through: Mr.P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus M/S LT.C LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. L.K.Bhushan and Mr.Gaurav Behl, Advocates. CORAM: HON',BLE MR. JUSTTCE VtPtN SANGHI ORDER 29.O9.20LL The present petitions have been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking restraint against the respondent from giving effect to the termination letters 26.03.20LI issued by the respondent to each of the petitioners, whereby the petitioners' request to seek renewal of the licence of their respective Shops in question has been turned down by the respondent and each of the petitioners have been asked to remove all their goods lying in the shops in question before 31" March, 2OLL, Injunction is sought by each of these petitioners against the respondent from disturbing the petitioners' use and occupation of the shops in question. After receiving notice, reply has been filed by the respondent. I am not inclined to disturb the status quo at this stage. 4 v It'\*l I have heard learned counsel for the parties. After some arguments, it is agreed that the petitioners' use and occupation of the shop in question shall not be disturbed during the Arbitration proceedings. The respondent has expressed the apprehension that the petitioners would stretch the arbitration proceedings to perpetuate their use of the shops in question. The petitioners, however, state that they have no such intention, and they are agreeable to early disposal of the arbitration proceedings. Consequently, learned counsels for the parties, on instructions, agreed that the Court may straightway appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. lt is also agreed that the petitioners shall file their respects statements of claim and all documents relied upon by each of them within three weeks from today. Respondent shall file its counter statements/ counter-claims and documents within two weeks thereafter. Neither the party shall seek, or shall be granted any undue adjournment. ln case the proceedings are delayed by the petitioner, it will be open to the respondent to seek variation of this order before the arbitral Tribunal itself. With the consent of the parties, I hereby appoint Dr.Justice M.K.Sharma (Retd. Judge of Supreme Court of India) as a sole Arbitrator. Considering that the primary issue involved is the interpretation of the contractual terms, and also the fact that there are four cases which involves the same issues, the petitioners state that { 4a' '\l they are small businessmen, and all are being referred to the same learned Arbitrator, the fee of the learned Arbitrator is fixed at { 2 lacs in each case to be shared equally by both the petitioner and the respondent in each case. Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal on 17th November,20Il at 4:30 p.m. However, if the said date and time is not convenient to him, he may fix another date and time in consultation with the pafties, It is hoped that the learned Arbitrator shall pass the Awards within six months from today. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator, With these observations, the petitions stand disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI, J SEPTEMBER 29,?OLL SA /i -f/ad^ F t+ q+vr,l n- f'-/ &&entuvn of drvq C P - 3 f#-ry .1 !> $-* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELIII #39 to 42 39+ o.M.P. 249/2011 M/S NEW DELHI VAULTS LTD ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitish K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus M/S I.T.C' LTD ""' ResPondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik BajPai, Advocate. AND 40+ o.M.P. 250/201L M/S SUN SHINE ALLEY ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitish K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus IWS I.T.C' LTD ""' ResPondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik BajPai, Advocate. AND 4r+ o.M.P. 251/2011 i\4/S ALI SHAH ..... Petitioner Mr. Nitish K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Through: Versus M/S I.T.C. LTD ""' ResPondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik BajPai, Advocate. L( 'F, AND 42+ O.M.P. 252/20IL DHARAM VIR CHAWLA ...'. Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitish K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate. Versus I\4/S I.T.C. LTD ""' ResPondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Bajpai, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER oh 11.05.2012 I.A. No.9026/2012 in O.M.P. No.249l201L I.A. No.9025/2012 in O.M.P. No.250/20LL I.A. No.9022l2012 in O.M.P. No.251l20l1 I.A. No.9024l2012 in O.M.P. No.252l20ll (all for extension of time) 1. The request to the learned Arbitrator in the order dated 29th September 2011 was not intended to be a mandatory direction. 2. The learned Arbitrator will endeavor to pass the final Award within a period of four months from today. 3. The applications are disposed of. 4. Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court Master. \\-/ ' )-) __\/ S. MURALIDHAR. J. MAY tt,20t2 lbs