O.M.P. (COMM) 532/2020 Page 1 of 7

$~14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 532/2020

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

..... Petitioner

Through

:Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Yoginder

Handoo, Advs.

Versus

APPLAUSE HOSPITALITY

SERVICES PVT. LTD AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through

Ms. Leena Tuteja, Mr. Ishaan

Chawla and Ms. Diksha Bhatia,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

(Video-Conferencing)

O R D E R (ORAL)

%

22.01.2021

3.

Inasmuch as, the petition is by way of challenge, under Section

34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred

to as “1996 Act”), to an award of the learned arbitrator, exchange of

O.M.P. (COMM) 532/2020

1.

Issue notice. Ms. Leena Tuteja, learned counsel for the

respondents, accepts notice.

2.

Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks

with advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner, who may file

rejoinder thereto, if any, within a period of two weeks thereof.

2021:DHC:252

O.M.P. (COMM) 532/2020 Page 2 of 7

pleadings is not necessary. The Registry is, however, directed to

requisition the arbitral records from the learned arbitral tribunal and

have the same placed on record prior to the next date of hearing. A

copy thereof would also be provided, by email, to learned Counsel for

the parties.

4.

Renotify on 15^th April, 2021.

IA 10239/2020 (Section 151 CPC)

1.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing of the

petition is condoned.

2.

The application is allowed and disposed of.

IA 10237/2020 (Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996)

1.

Mr. Anil Grover, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the

NDMC submits, at the very outset, that he is restricting his prayer for

stay to the direction qua Claim IV of the respondents, who were the

claimants before the learned arbitrator. The said direction, as

contained in the operative part of the impugned award, may be

reproduced.

“Claim IV: Allowed.

(i)

The Claimants are entitled to carry on the

business of Eating lounge/Bar from the Commercial

Area of the project site subject to statutory

permissions;

2021:DHC:252

O.M.P. (COMM) 532/2020 Page 3 of 7

(ii)

The show cause notice-cum-sealing order dated

25/02/2016 is contrary to the Concession Agreement

and is illegal. The sealing of the Eating Lounge was

illegal and in breach of the Concession Agreement;

(iii) The Respondent shall permit the Claimants to

operate and carry out commercial activities from the

Project Site, in terms of the Concession Agreement,

without hindrance.”

2.

Mr. Grover has, essentially, sought to challenge the afore-

extracted directions of the learned arbitrator on the ground that, as per

the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “MPD

2021”), the area in question, forming subject matter of controversy,

was not a “District Park”, as it was less than 25 hectares and the MPD

2021 requires a District Park to be in excess of 25 hectares. He,

however, acknowledges the fact that in the Concession Agreement,

between the petitioner and the respondents, the area in question was

described as a District Park. This fact also stands acknowledged in the

short notes of the written submissions filed by the petitioner-NDMC

before this Court, in which it is averred that the “erroneous

statement”, in the Concession Agreement, to the effect that the project

site was a District Park, could not operate as an estoppel against the

petitioner. He submits that the reference, in the Concession

Agreement, to the project site as a ‘District Park’, was immaterial, as

the NDMC was not empowered to grant concession against the law.

3.

It is also acknowledged that