Court quashes Arbitrator's award, directs disputes on "leave & license" to Civil Court

The court quashed the Arbitrator's award due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that disputes involving "leave and license" agreements should be resolved by the Civil Court. The court also modified the award on costs, directing the Petitioner to bear its own costs. The parties were encouraged to settle the matter, with all points kept open for further adjudication if needed. The order concluded by setting aside the award dated 4 February 2010, except for the modified costs as stated in the judgment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.
2. Nature of the agreement (Leave and License vs. Business Conducting Agreement).
3. Award of costs and payment obligations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator:
The primary issue was whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute, given the nature of the agreement and the relationship between the parties. The Petitioner argued that the nature of the possession was that of a license to use the Hyper Market Store Area and that such issues should be determined exclusively by the Civil Court, not through arbitration. The court referred to several precedents indicating that disputes involving "leave and license" agreements, possession, and occupation charges fall under the jurisdiction of specific statutes and not under arbitration. The court concluded that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction, stating, "The Arbitrator has no jurisdiction and/or authority to pass and to entertain such claim, as it is barred by specific provisions as referred above."

2. Nature of the Agreement:
Another significant issue was the interpretation of the agreement between the parties-whether it was a "Leave and License Agreement" or a "Business Conducting Agreement." The Petitioner contended that the agreement was a Leave and License Agreement, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court examined the agreement's clauses and the parties' conduct, concluding that the agreement created a relationship of "Licensor and Licensee." The court noted, "The nature of clauses and the agreement, in my view, create the relationship of 'Licensor and Licensee' and fall within the ambit of specific law."

3. Award of Costs and Payment Obligations:
The Arbitrator had awarded costs to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay specific amounts. The court modified this aspect of the award, stating that since the award was quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the Petitioner should bear its own costs and not the costs of the Respondent. The court ordered, "The award is modified to that extent," and clarified that the Petitioner was still obligated to make payments as per the bill dated 14 January 2010 but not the costs awarded in paragraph 69 of the Award.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the Arbitrator's award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that disputes involving "leave and license" agreements should be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The court also modified the award concerning costs, directing the Petitioner to bear its own costs. The parties were encouraged to settle the matter, with all points kept open for further adjudication if necessary. The order concluded with, "Award dated 4 February 2010 is quashed and set aside, except the award of costs as modified in paragraph No. 21 of this Judgment."

---