Andaman And Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Ltd. (Aniidco) v. M/S Heaven On Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd. And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** FMAT/7/2023 Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Limited (ANIIDCO) Vs.

M/s Heaven on Ocean Tourism Private Limited and another Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the appellant Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz ... for the respondents January 10, 2024 [SR] Item No.5 This is an appeal from an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the learned District Judge in Other Suit No.09 of 2022.

The learned District Judge, upon coming to a specific finding with regard to the possession of the respondents in terms of an agreement, had directed status quo to be maintained, till the culmination of the arbitration proceedings. It is informed to us that the arbitration proceedings have been initiated.

Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the order impugned should be interfered with in this appeal. The learned Judge ought not to have passed a blanket status quo without directing payment of admitted rents/occupational charges.

We find from the order impugned before us, that the learned Judge had considered the issue of waiver of rent in respect of clause 26 of the agreement and had directed that such issue will be decided in the arbitration. The proceedings were disposed of and the learned arbitrator is in seisin of the matter. The arbitration proceeding is at the stage of evidence.

The order of status quo was upto the culmination of the arbitration proceedings. So, there is no scope for interference in this appeal.

The learned Judge was of the view that all issues with regard to payment of rent and application of clause 26 (c) of the agreement, were to be dealt with by the learned Arbitrator. Without considering the waiver clause, termination letter was issued and the respondents approached the learned Court under section 9 of the said Act by filing Other Suit No.09 of 2022. The issues are before the learned arbitrator and the arbitration has proceeded upto the stage of evidence. Thus, the order impugned does not survive.

Mr. Chakraborty's claim that just because an arbitration proceeding is continuing, the rent payable after the pandemic period upto the present date, could not be withheld by the respondents, must be made before the learned Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator shall consider the same in accordance with law.

We have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of contentions of the pending proceeding. The appeal is disposed of.

( Shampa Sarkar, J. ) ( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )