The court affirmed that the claimant must secure the necessary Airport Entry Permits and upheld the arbitration award, ruling no breach by the respondent; consent regarding the arbitrator's appointment was valid despite statutory disqualification.

ORDER :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

Prayer:- Original Petition is filed under Section 34 (2)(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent under the License Agreement dated 27.07.2016.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Impugned Award dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Arbitrator.

2. By the aforesaid Impugned Award dated 18.05.2023, learned Arbitrator has rejected the Statement of Claim of the petitioner and has allowed the Counter Claim of the respondents. The prayer of the petitioner in its Statement of Claim dated 11.08.2022 reads as under:-

(i) For a direction to the respondent to refund the Advance License fee of Rs.14,98,961/- paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

(ii) For a direction to the respondent to return the Bank Guarantee issued by the petitioner favour of the respondent towards Security Deposit of Rs.1,20,41,977/-.

(iii) For a directing to the respondent not to encash the Bank Guarantee during the pendency of the present Arbitration proceeding.

(iv) For a directing to the respondent to refund the Electricity Deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

(v) For a directing to the respondent to pay damages of Rs.31,11,723/-

(vi) For Award interest @12% p.a. on the above prayers (i) - (v) from the date of first demand i.e. 07.08.2018.

(vii) For a directing to the respondent to pay Rs 5,00,000/- towards cost of the present proceedings.

3. The Impugned Award preceded a decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) wherein the claims of the petitioner were rejected on 28.12.2021. Following issues were framed before the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) : -

i. What is the scope of license awarded to the Claimant? Whether there was any restriction on operation imposed on the claimant post award of the tender?

ii. Whether Claimant is liable to pay the license.

If yes, what is the quantum?

iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any rebate in the License Fee payable to respondent?

iv. Whether the Claimant is entitled for the refund of the security deposit for Rs.1,07,05,000/- and Rs.14,98,961/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards electricity deposit and damage of Rs.31,11,723/- from Respondent?

4. The Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) rejected the claim of the petitioner on 28.12.2021 with the following overrule:-

“Observation

Committee has come across during the course of hearing and documents produced that the previous contract for the Meet and Greet Service was cancelled based on non-issuance of AEPs by BCAS. Commercial Directorate should have reviewed the tender condition before inviting fresh tender to avoid disputes/litigation.”

5. Operative portion of the Impugned Award dated 18.05.2023 reads as under:-

“9. Findings of Tribunal and Award

The following issues emerge from the various rival submission made by Claimant and Respondent:

(a) Responsibility and Obligation to obtain AEPS:-

It may be brought out that Draft contract was part of NIT. Considering various clauses of NIT, Award letter and Agreement, Tribunal observed that the obligation to obtain and keep valid various licenses, passes and other permits which would within its meaning include the AEPs* was solely wit