IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Amayra Hospitality - Respondent
Arb.P. 126 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of arbitration petition and facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's attempts to resolve disputes through legal notice. (Para 3) |
| 3. court’s consideration of parties’ request for arbitration. (Para 4) |
| 4. appointment of sole arbitrator and governing provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. conclusion and order for arbitration. (Para 8 , 9) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondents in terms of Clause 14 of the Online terms and conditions, which were mentioned in Clause 15 and 16 of Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreements dated 06.07.2019.
2. As per the averments made in the present petition, petitioner is an incorporated Company, respondent No.1 is a partnership firm and respondent No. 2 is partner of respondent No.1 and is running a hotel in the name Hotel Anupama in Mahabaleshwar-412806. Further, respondents had approached the petitioner with a representation that respondents are in possession of a property named Hotel Anupama which can be used for commercial purposes for hiring and letting. Based on the representations of the respondents, petitioner and respondents entered into a Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement dated 06.07.2019 by virtue of which petitioner was given the right to list the hotel of the respondents on its online platform and portal as part of the OYO Rooms property bearing OYO ID MBL055, in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions as part of the aforesaid Agreement. In terms of the said Agreement, the petitioner provided an advance amount to respondents towards the increased capital expenditure on the renovation and refurbishment works at the Hotel. It was agreed between the parties that the respondents shall repay the said amount through equated monthly installments to the petitioner and the respondents in this respect had issued cheques in favor of the petitioner. However, the aforementioned cheques, were dishonored by the respondents' bank citing various reasons. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties. According to petitioner, the respondents are indebted for an admitted outstanding amount of Rs. 12,95,197/-.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner served with a Legal Demand Notice dated 06.08.2020 to respondent for settling the pending disputes, within the prescribed period. However, respondent failed to respond to the same. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for parties pressed that this Court may appoint Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
5. In view of the above and with the consent of parties, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. T.R. Naval, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9910384662) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
Appointment of an arbitrator is essential when disputes arise from contractual agreements and non-compliance with demand notices, reinforcing the obligations under the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
Court can appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with mutual consent of the parties for efficient dispute resolution.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court appointed a sole arbitrator for resolving disputes under a loan agreement after respondents failed to adhere to repayment terms and contested the agreement's existence.
The court affirmed the need for compliance with contractually agreed arbitration clauses, appointing an arbitrator when parties fail to cooperate.
The court confirmed the right to appoint an arbitrator due to the respondent's non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, affirming that the disputes were arbitrable.
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.