HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application No.14 of 2011 15th September, 2011 Between:- M/s.Hyderabad International Trade Expositions Limited (HITEX), Registered Office at HITEX, NAC Campus, Izzatnagar, Near Madhapur, Hyderabad Rep. By its Chief Operating Officer – Mr.Sanjay Kapoor .. Applicant And M/s.Buysell Interactions Pvt.Ltd., 5, Shanmugam Street, Royapettah, Chennai .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application No.14 of 2011 ORDER:- This application has been taken out by M/s.Hyderabad International Trade Expositions Limited (HITEX) under sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes relatable to License Terms and Conditions for organizing exhibition/events at HITEX. 2. The applicant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at HITEX, Izzatnagar, near Madhapur, Hyderabad. It is engaged in the business of organizing trade Expositions for different segments of industrial products, trade, handicrafts etc., as well as providing the space at their HITEX Exhibition Centre, near Madhapur, Hyderabad, for interested parties/industries for organizing such events. The respondent initially booked two Halls – Hall No.1 admeasuring 3500 Sq.Mts., and Hall No.3 admeasuring 1500 Sq.Mts., to organize an Exposition known as “CINEMA TODAY 2010, PHOTO TODAY 2010 AND MEDIA TODAY 2010” from 11-2-2010 to 14-2-2010. Subsequently, the respondent cancelled the booking for Hall No.3 admeasuring 1500 Sq.Mts., and conducted the event in Hall No.1 admeasuring 3500 Sq.Mts. Certain amounts have been paid by the respondent for conducting the events in Hall No.1 admeasuring 3500 Sq.Mts. The applicant demanded payment of amount for the events conducted by the respondent in Hall No.1 admeasuring 3500 Sq.Mts., by raising invoice No.2009-10/240. The total amount demanded by the applicant is Rs.21,82,010/-. The respondent made certain payments. A final demand has been made by the applicant on 21-4-2010. The demand made by the applicant is Rs.2,03,000/- being the balance in respect of Hall No.1 and penalty of Rs.6,75,000/- for cancellation of booking in respect of Hall No.3. The respondent denied its liability to pay the same. Thereupon, the applicant issued a notice dated 6-7-2010 by invoking the arbitration clause in the License Terms and Conditions and proposed the name of Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, a retired District Judge, as an Arbitrator. The respondent issued a reply dated 5-8-2010 disputing its liability to pay the amount demanded by the applicant. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the reply notice, which reads as hereunder:- “My client state that even after the exhibition was over your client did not provide with the accurate accounts to settle the same. Your client threatened and coerced my client and forced them to sign a letter dated 14-2-2010 and also took two cheques totalling for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.Six Lakhs only) towards security. My client calls upon your client to return the said cheques. My client states despite several requests your client failed to send the final invoice and finally your client on 22-2-2010 sent a mail attaching an invoice dated 15-2-2010 incorporating certain wholly untenable claims. Therefore my client was constrained to dispute the some of the claims made by your client. Further my client has also sent a detailed mail enclosing the query as regards the disputed amounts. Your client till date have not sent any reply clarifying or asserting as to how the amounts were arrived and as to how they are entitled to the same. However my client promptly paid the amounts admitted by it amounting to a sum of Rs.19,80,000/-. My client states that all amounts due and payable to your client have been paid by my client and as on date there are no dues. The imaginary claim of your client is hence denied and the consequential invocation of the Arbitration Clause is not sustainable as there is no dispute to be resolved under the Arbitration. The claim of your client is false and baseless and is liable to be rejected.” In view of the reply, the applicant approached this Court invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 9-3-2011. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter admitting of organizing the events in Hall NO.1 pursuant to the License Terms and Conditions. The respondent pleads that there is deficiency in the services rendered by the applicant and therefore there is no obligation on its part to pay the amounts the applicant. The stand of the respondent is that whatever amount due to the applicant has been paid. 4. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the respondent conducting events from 11-2-2010 to 14-2-2010 in Hall No.1 admeasuring 3500 Sq.Mts. Initially, the respondent booked two Halls i.e., Hall No.1 admeasuring 3500 Sq.Mts., and Hall No.3 admeasuring 1500 Sq.Mts. Subsequently the respondent cancelled the booking of Hall No.3 admeasuring 1500 Sq.Mts. As per the License Terms and Conditions in the event of surrender, certain percentage of penalty is required to be paid. It is the contention of the respondent that it surrendered Hall No.3 admeasuring 1500 Sq.Mts., even before the commencement of events and therefore there is no obligation on its part to pay the amount. It is also the contention of the respondent that there is deficiency of service rendered by the applicant and therefore there is no obligation on its part to pay the amount demanded by the applicant. 6. Be that as it may, the disputes have arisen between the parties relatable to the License Terms and Conditions in respect of Hall No.1 and Hall No.3. The said disputes are required to be settled as per clause 16 of the License Terms and Conditions by taking recourse to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause and issued Notice, dated 6-7- 2010, proposing Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, a retired District Judge, as an Arbitrator. Since the respondent has not consented for the name proposed, the applicant has filed this application seeking the prayer stated supra. Since the disputes between the parties are required to be settled by way of arbitration as per clause 16 of the License Terms and Conditions, I find that the applicant has made out a valid ground for appointment of an Arbitrator. 7. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed. Sri S.Rama Krishna Reddy, a retired District Judge, is appointed as Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the parties relatable to the License Terms and Conditions in respect of Hall No.1 and Hall No.3. He is at liberty to fix his own fee. No order as to costs. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 15th September, 2011 smr