Sat. Sep 26th, 2020

M/S Unique Infoways Pvt Ltd vs V Cubed Pvt Ltd & Anr on 5 June, 2015

2 min read

Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rajesh Yadav and Mr. Neeraj Yadav,
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Caveat No. 603/2015 in FAO(OS) No.306/2015
Caveat No.604/2015 in FAO(OS) No. 307/2015

Learned counsel for the caveators enters appearance.
Caveats are discharged.
FAO(OS) No. 306/2015
FAO(OS) 307/2015 & CM 10970/2015

1. The petitioner M/s Unique Infoways Pvt. Ltd. (in short „Unique
Infoways‟) entered into sub-sub license agreement with Sapphire Projects
Pvt. Ltd. (in short „Sapphire Projects‟) and M/s V Cubed Pvt. Ltd. (in short
„V Cubed‟) by taking the entire upper ground floor of Nehru Place Metro
Station for a period of 12 years given to M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on
a license for a period of 30 years by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short
„DMRC‟). According to Unique Infoways the sub-sub lincense agreement
dated 10th July, 2012 was entered for a period of 12 years with no right of
termination in favour of the sub-sub licensor and right of termination only
vested with Unique Infoways. Unique Infoways agreed for a monthly
license fee/rent of Rs.1 crore including CAM charges and service tax and a
refundable security of Rs.4.75 crores was deposited with Sapphire Projects
and V Cubed. It is the case of Unique Infoways that after an initial fit-out
period of 3 months the respondents failed to provide basic structure,
requirements and contractual obligations till June, 2013 and thus Unique
Infoways could start their operation only thereafter. Unique Infoways
restructured and reorganized the work in phased manner and tried to
renovate one wing for new venture which they wanted to start. It is stated by
Unique Infoways that respondents adopted illegal business practices by

delaying the working of Unique Infoways by impressing and insisting upon
it to incorporate a few brands of their liking and choice. Unique Infoways
vide its letter dated 22nd March, 2015 asked the respondents to refrain from
obstructing and interfering in renovation work, however respondents replied
that they never agreed for the business of restaurants in the area whereas
Unique Infoways was free to enjoy the licensed area as it wished. In view of
the disputes between the parties and hindrance in the unobstructed business
activities of Unique Infoways, it filed a petition under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was registered as OMP(I) 143/2015.

Source: Judgment

Leave a Reply