K And K Business Park vs. Triotree Technologies PVT LTD & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, K and K Business Park, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner and respondent, Triotree Technologies Pvt Ltd, entered into a Business Support Services Agreement on November 2, 2022, for office space and amenities. The respondent was to pay monthly service charges of Rs. 4,11,000 plus GST at 18%. The petitioner alleged irregular payments and a notice of intent to vacate by the respondent, followed by a failure to vacate. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a legal notice dated December 7, 2024. The respondent contended that a Samjhauta Nama (settlement agreement) dated March 20, 2024, terminated the original agreement.
Held
The Court held that the arbitration clause in the Business Support Services Agreement survives. The Court found that the Samjhauta Nama dated 20.03.2024 was not a settlement of all disputes between the parties. Instead, it was merely a reiteration of amounts due and payable by both the respondents to the petitioner and vice-versa. Since disputes still existed between the parties, the arbitration clause remained operative. The Court reasoned that the existence of outstanding financial matters, as reflected in the Samjhauta Nama, indicated that the underlying contractual relationship and its dispute resolution mechanism were still relevant. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and Mr. Avinash Kumar Trivedi was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings will be conducted under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). All rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability and merits of claims, were left open for adjudication by the arbitrator. The parties were directed to approach the arbitrator within two weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the arbitration clause in the Business Support Services Agreement dated 02.11.2022 survives and is arbitrable, considering the subsequent Samjhauta Nama dated 20.03.2024? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the arbitration clause remains valid and disputes need to be adjudicated by an arbitrator. They relied on the fact that the Samjhauta Nama did not constitute a full settlement of all disputes but merely reiterated amounts due. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the Samjhauta Nama brought an end to the original agreement, thereby rendering the arbitration clause inoperative. They asserted that the execution of this document signified the conclusion of their contractual relationship.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Section 12
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 25.04.2025
This is a petition filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Business Support Services Agreement dated 02.11.2022 as per which the petitioner provided an office space of area admeasuring 8500 sq.ft. situated at D-247/3, Second Floor, Front Portion, Sector-63, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh along with certain fixtures, furniture and other amenities to the respondents. The said Agreement was valid for a period of 3 years commencing from 15.11.2022. 3. The respondent was required to pay service charges of Rs.4,11,000 plus GST @ 18% per month including maintenance to the petitioner for the services rendered. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:44:23
The Business Support Services Agreement contains the arbitration clause being clause No. 18 which reads as under:- “18. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to ARBITRATION PROCEEDING AS PER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996. Any such dispute which is not resolved within fifteen (15) days after the giving of a notice in accordance with clause 11, at the request of either party, the dispute with respect to the Agreement be referred to arbitration before a single arbitrator as per mutual consent, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. Place of the sitting and juri iction of the said sole arbitrator will be at DELHI. The courts of Delhi shall have the juri iction for the purposes of Execution and appeal arising from the said arbitration proceedings.”
As per the petitioner, the respondents were irregular in making monthly payments of service charges. On 14.03.2024, the respondents sent a notice of intent to vacate the premises and assured the petitioner that the respondents would vacate the premises on 31.05.2024, but did not vacate the premises.
The petitioner invoked arbitration clause vide legal notice dated 07.12.2024 and thereafter, filed the present petition.
Mr. Tandon, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents and states that the petitioner and the respondents entered into a Samjhauta Nama dated 20.03.2024 and hence, the said Agreement came to an end on execution of the Samjhauta Nama. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:44:23
A perusal of the Samjhauta Nama clearly shows that it is not a settlement of all disputes but only a reiteration of the amounts due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner and also the amounts payable by the petitioner to the respondents.
Since, there are disputes between the parties, I am of the view that the arbitration clause survives and the disputes arising between the parties need to be referred to arbitration.
For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:- i) Mr. Avinash Kumar Trivedi (Mob. No. 9871441764) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’) and as per Rules of DIAC. iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:44:23
for adjudication by the learned arbitrator. vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.
The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 25, 2025/sp Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:44:23
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.