The licensor's obligation to ensure the fitness of the licensed premises and the evidentiary value of documents presented before the Arbitral Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner (hereafter "ITDC") has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereafter the "A&C Act") impugning an arbitral award dated 11.05.2018 (hereafter the "impugned award") rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the "Arbitral Tribunal")

2. The impugned award has been rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with a License Deed dated 01.03.2013 (hereafter the "Agreement").

3. ITDC is a Government Company under the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. It owns several properties under the brand 'Ashok Group of Hotels' including the hotel 'The Ashok' situated at Diplomatic Enclave 50B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110021 (hereafter the "Ashok Hotel").

4. The respondent (hereafter "BMEL") is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter alia, engaged in the business of running several screen multiplexes, commercial complex, restaurants and night clubs.

5. On 01.03.2013, the parties entered into the Agreement wherein ITDC granted Leave and License to BMEL to operate an International Cuisine Restaurant cum Night Club under the name 'Stellar', earlier known as 'Pangea', in respect of a space measuring 9552.60 sq. feet within the premises of the Ashok Hotel on an 'as is where is basis' (hereafter 'the Premises'). The Agreement was for a period of five years commencing from 09.01.2013. BMEL was also entitled to a onetime renewal of the Agreement after expiry of the said agreement.

6. In terms of Sub-clause 11(1) of the Agreement, BMEL agreed to make the following annual payments as a fixed lumpsum Guaranteed License Fee:

7. After the execution of the Agreement, on 21.01.2013, BMEL paid a Security Deposit of a sum equivalent to the three months' License Fee amounting to ? 1,24,00,368/- vide Cheque bearing no. 556465. On the same date, that is, 21.01.2013, in terms of Sub-clause II.7 of the Agreement, BMEL also deposited a Bank Guarantee bearing number 0005INSF13032533 amounting ? 1,24,00,368/-, in favour of ITDC.

8. Disputes arose between the parties as BMEL claimed that ITDC had failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement on several grounds.

9. First, BMEL contended that in terms of the Agreement, it was required to deposit the daily liquor sale at the front office of ITDC, on a weekly basis. In terms of Clause VII of the Agreement, ITDC was required to refund the balance of the liquor sale proceeds to BMEL after deduction of liquor cost, 10% administrative charges as well as applicable tax. According to BMEL, ITDC had failed to pay an amount of ? 2,38,28,836/- due towards BMEL, as refund of the liquor sale proceeds from the period 01.08.2014 till 30.04.2015. BMEL further contended that ITDC had failed to comply with several liquor orders amounting to ? 21,44,014/- and thus, ITDC was obligated to refund the deposit amount in light of cancellation of the liquor orders. Accordingly, BMEL adjusted a sum of ? 2,57,21,750 [? 2,38,28,836 (on account of refund of liquor sale) plus ? 18,92,914 (on account of non-processing the liquor order)] against the license fee. BMEL claimed that an amount of ? 2,51,100/- was still due from ITDC due to ITDC's failure of non-processing the liquor order.

10. Second, ITDC had failed and neglected to address the issue of water seepage, at the Premises. BMEL states that it wrote several letters from March 2015 to July 2015 and raised concerns regarding extensive damage caused to the interiors of the Premises including damage caused to the POP ceiling, upper deck area, CCTV server, UPS server area, wooden flooring, music system and furniture. ITDC by its letter dated 14.07.2015 informed BMEL that