SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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




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 Act.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petition filed for appointment of Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreements dated 06.07.2019 - Respondents dishonored cheques citing various reasons, leading to outstanding amount of Rs. 12,95,197/- - Court allows the appointment of Mr. T.R. Naval as Sole Arbitrator with fees governed by Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. (Paras 1-5, 6-8)

(B) Legal Demand Notice - Petitioner served respondents with a Legal Demand Notice for settling disputes which remained unanswered, justifying petition for arbitration. (Paras 3-5)

(C) Consent of Parties - Court acknowledges the request and consent of parties for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve disputes. (Paras 4-5)

Findings of Court:
Mr. T.R. Naval is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between parties, ensuring compliance with the requisite statutory provisions.

Issues: The main issues involve the enforcement of the arbitration agreement and the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve financial disputes arising from the Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of an arbitrator is justified as disputes arose from the dishonor of cheques and the lack of response to the demand notice, thus validating the necessity for arbitration.

Result: Petition allows the appointment of Sole Arbitrator.

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)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top