to be subject to arbitration. The Larger Bench also relied on the Supreme Court`s decision in the cases, which ruled that the arbitration clauses in the leave and the licensing agreements relating to the case of Ashok Thapar v. Tarang Exports (P) Ltd, Hon`ble Bombay High Court ruled that a compromise clause survived, even though the Leave and License Agreement was terminated. According to the analysis SMS Tea Estate (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd. v.
Potluri Madhavilata, it was decided that once the parties intended to refer their dispute to the arbitrator, any dispute related to such an agreement must necessarily be turned over to the arbitrator, even if the agreement containing such a clause is terminated by mutual consent. The respondent – the original applicant – had lodged a complaint on the basis of an agreement reached between the parties in July 2012. Under the agreement, the respondent was authorized to use the premises in question on leave and under licence. In accordance with the agreement, any disputes relating to the transaction were to be referred to the arbitrator under the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This agreement was then terminated by each other by the parties in October 2012. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application for forfeiture of bail and other rights on the basis of the content of this agreement. The applicant requested that the civil court not be empowered to take legal action taking into account the compromise clause (point 11) of the agreement. However, the Tribunal rejected the notification of the application and found that the civil court had jurisdiction to review the case. That is how the complainant filed the immediate appeal. The main features of a licence are that a licence is not related to ownership of land or property, but only creates a personal right or personal obligation; A licence cannot be transferred or granted; The licence is a purely permissive, explicit or implied right, not by unfavorable exercise or otherwise; It merely legalizes a particular act which would otherwise be illegal, and gives no interest to the property itself on which such an act is permitted.
However, in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corp., the Hon`ble Supreme Court recently referred the question of the ability to arbitrate after the transfer of ownership to Larger Bench, finding that Himangni Enterprises` verdict should be reconsidered. There is nothing in the TP Act that shows that a dispute over the determination of the lease cannot be resolved by arbitration. It was indicated that the reasons for whether r/w s.114 or 114A can be collected before an arbitrator. Accelerated arbitration can be useful for resolving renter-tenant disputes. As soon as the arbitrator`s tax is set at one month`s rent, he is encouraged to hear and eliminate the matter in a timely manner. In addition, the arbitration award is valid and binding for the parties under section 35 of the Arbitration Act and can be enforced by filing an application for execution and execution in the local civil court, in accordance with Section 36 of the Act.