IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - Petitioner
Versus
HOTEL LEELAVENTURE LTD. - Respondent
O.M.P. 1206 of 2012
Decided on : 15-7-2016
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 4, 108(e) - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 16, 34 - Lease - Frustration of lease - Arbitrator - Power of - Lease for a period of 30 years - After 14 years, the respondent invoked the arbitration - Claim was raised with regard to discharge from the liability to pay Royalty of Minimum Guaranteed Amount - Lease has become commercially unviable to construct the Hotel due to recession - Arbitrator allowed the respondent's claim and declared payment of Royalty has become impossible - Parties are directed to enter into a new contract - Held, award is illegal - Respondent's liability to pay the Royalty (MGA) to the petitioner under the Transfer of Property Act is absolute and unconditional - Arbitrator had no power to discharge the respondent from paying the Royalty to the petitioner - Principal of frustration of lease excludes the general law - Arbitrator has re-written the terms of the contract by discharging the respondent from the liability to pay the Royalty (MGA) and directed the parties to renegotiate the terms of the contract - Arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract and cannot go beyond the terms of the contract.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 4, 108(e) - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56 - Lease - Payment of Royalty - Obligation of is absolute - Respondent is not entitled to plead impossibility as an excuse for non-payment of the Royalty - If the payment of the Royalty had become onerous, the lessee had the option to determine the lease by 180 days' notice - Lessee cannot seek discharge from the liability to pay the Royalty to the petitioner - Recession was not permanent - Frustration cannot be used as a device to avoid a bad bargain - Contract was for a period of 30 years - There would be various economic turmoil over a period as long as 30 years - Respondent has enjoyed the subject property without paying the Royalty and the outstanding dues - Petitioner will pay the accumulated amount to the tune of more than Rs. 258 crores - Petition is allowed - Impugned award is set aside.
1. The greatest challenge before the judiciary today is the frivolous litigation. The judicial system in the country is choked with false claims and such litigants are consuming Courts’ time for a wrong cause. False claims are a huge strain on the judicial system. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470, J.S. Khehar, J. observed that the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation and ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. (Emphasis supplied)
2. In the present case, the respondent is a lessee in respect of 11,000 sq. mtrs. land near Mumbai International Airport for a period of 30 years from 1st April, 1994 to 30th March, 2024. On 13th August, 2008, i.e., after about 14 years of the commencement of the lease, the respondent invoked the arbitration and raised a claim to seek discharge from the liability to pay Royalty of Minimum Guaranteed Amount [hereinafter referred to as “Royalty (MGA)”] under the lease on the ground that it has become commercially unviable to construct the Hotel due to recession in the hotel industry and therefore, the clause with respect to payment of Royalty (MGA) has frustrated under Section 56 of the Contract Act.
3. The learned Arbitrator allowed the respondent’s claim and declared that the payment of Royalty (MGA) by the respondent has become impossible under Section 56 of the Contract Act w.e.f. 01st June, 2008 and, therefore, the parties may enter into a new contract. As a result, the respondent is continuing the possession but is discharged from the liability of paying Royalty (MGA). According to the petitioner, the respondent’s liability as on 31st May, 2016 along with interest thereon has crossed Rs.258 crores.
4. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 29th August, 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on various grounds inter alia:
4.1. The award is against the well settled law that the lessee’s liability to pay the amounts under the lease to the lessor is absolute and unconditional; and the learned Arbitrator had no power of absolving the respondent from making the payment of the Royalty (MGA).
4.2. The impugned award is also against the well settled law that Section 56 of the Contract Act is not applicable to leases. If the payment of Royalty (MGA) had became unviable, the respondent had the option to surrender the lease but the respondent could not claim that the clause requiring the payment of Royalty (MGA) has frustrated.
4.3. The learned Arbitrator has re-written the contract which is not permissible in law. The learned Arbitrator was bound by the terms of the contract, but he has gone beyond the contract by discharging the respondent from the liability to pay the Royalty (MGA) and directing the parties to re-negotiate the contract.
4.4. The statement of claim instituted by respondent is gross abuse and misuse of process of law. The statement of claim was not even maintainable in law and the learned Arbitrator ought to have rejected the same at the outset.
5. Factual matrix
5.1. The petitioner licensed 11,000 sq. meters of land near Mumbai International Airport to the respondent in 1982. On respondent’s request, the license was converted into a lease and a lease deed dated 7th February, 1996 was executed by the parties for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 01st April, 1994 to 31st March, 2024. Under the lease deed, the respondent was required to pay the lease money as well as the Royalty (MGA). Relevant clauses of the lease deed are as under: -
“WHEREAS the land, admeasuring ap
State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram (1980) 3 SCC 599
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.
Sham Lal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 336]
State of Haryana v. Jage Ram (1980) 3 SCC 599
Track Innovations India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2010) 170 DLT 424
T. Lakshmipathi v. P. Nithyananda Reddy (2003) 5 SCC 150
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489.
Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engg. Enterprises
State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Constructions Co.
Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India
State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation (2006) 4 SCC 683.
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
Associated Engg. Co. v. Govt. of A.P. (1991) 4 SCC 93 : (1991) 4 SCC 665
Alopi Parshad v. Union of India (1960) 2 SCR 793 : AIR 1960 SC 588
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Construction (2003) 8 SCC 154
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani
Bharti Cellular Limited v. Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 174
C.J. International Hotels Ltd. v. N.D.M.C.
Citi Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank AIR 2003 SC 4630
Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma
Food Corporation of India v. Chandu Construction & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 697
Gopalakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajan Kattalai
Har Shanker v. Deputy Escise and Taxation Commissioner (1975) 1 SCC 737
H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India
Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)
Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)
K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (2012) 5 SCC 370
Mahadeo Prosad Shaw v. Calcutta Dyeing and Cleaning Co. AIR 1961 Cal 70
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Thermal Engineering Corporation, Bombay
New Delhi Municipal Council vs. M/s Prominent Hotels Limited
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath AIR 1968 SC 522
New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar
Oil and Natural Gas Coporation Ltd. v. Western Geco International Limited
Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1975) 2 SCC 633
Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533
Puravankara Projects Ltd. v. Hotel Venus International (2007) 10 SCC 33
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.