Delhi High Court
Oyo Hotels And Homes Private ... vs Pearl Hospitality And Events Pvt ... on 3 December, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:3rd December, 2020
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2020
OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Jeevan B. Panda, Ms.Shalini Sati Prasad,
Mr.Satish Padhi, Ms. Meher Tandon, Mr.Gaurav
Sharma, Advocates
Versus
PEARL HOSPITALITY & EVENTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate with
Mr.Ankur Jain, Mr.Abhay Pratap Singh,
Mr. Mohina Anand, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
: D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
CM 29146/2020 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 146/2020 & CM 29145/2020 (stay)
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') against an order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2020 in OMP(I)(COMM)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:07.12.2020 12:20
No.123/2020 and IA No.4644/2020 (Annexure-A1 to the memo of this
appeal), whereby the learned Single Judge has directed this appellant
(original respondent) to deposit Rs.2,23,50,000/- (Rupees Two Crores
Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Thousands only) before the Registrar General of
this Court. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by this order, the
present appeal has been preferred by the original respondent.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties have jointly represented to this
Court that an arbitrator is required to be appointed to resolve the disputes
between the parties arising out of the Management Service Agreement
entered into between the parties to this litigation. Under clause 10 of the said
Agreement, there is a provision for appointment of the arbitrator and the
applicability of the laws to resolve the disputes arising between the parties.
Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent (original
applicant in OMP No.123/2020) that an application under Section 11 of the
Act of 1996 has already been preferred after giving a notice to this appellant
and this Court has issued a notice in the said application returnable on
07.01.2021.
3. It is agreed by the learned counsel for both the sides that any former
judge of this Court be appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes
between the parties as mentioned in this appeal and as mentioned in OMP
No.123/2020. They have jointly requested this Court to appoint the
arbitrator.
4. We, therefore, appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) G. S. Sistani,
former Judge of this Court (Mobile: 98713-00034), as the learned Arbitrator
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:07.12.2020 12:20
to resolve the disputes between the parties to this litigation arising out of the
Management Service Agreement. The learned Arbitrator will fix his own
terms.
5. As we have already appointed the arbitrator, we do not think it is
necessary to go into the questions raised in this appeal. Keeping in mind the
principles of Section 9(3) of the Act of 1996, it would be more appropriate
to grant liberty to this appellant to prefer an application under Section 17 of
the Act of 1996 for variation in the interim arrangement contained in the
impugned order dated 03.11.2020 in OMP(I)(COMM) No.123/2020 with IA
No.4644/2020, within a period of 15 days from today. As and when such
application is preferred by this appellant before the learned Arbitrator, the
same will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law and on
the evidence on record and without being influenced by the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2020 in OMP(I)(COMM) No.123/2020
with IA No.4644/2020 (Annexure-A1 to the memo of this appeal).
6. Till the application, to be preferred by the appellant (original
respondent) under Section 17 of the Act of 1996, is decided by the learned
Arbitrator, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2020 in
OMP(I)(COMM) No.123/2020 with IA No.4644/2020 is hereby stayed and
will not be operative, subject to the orders passed by the learned Arbitrator
under Section 17 of the Act of 1996. This appellant will also give an
undertaking in the application before the learned Arbitrator that it will
maintain assets worth at least Rs.2,23,50,000/- as a security. This is also
subject to further orders that may be passed by the learned Arbitrator. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:07.12.2020 12:20
parties are at liberty to move application(s) before the learned Arbitrator in
accordance with law.
7. It is also agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties that the
learned counsel of the appellant (original respondent) will hand over the
keys of the premises in question to the learned counsel for the respondent
[original applicant in OMP(I)(COMM) No.123/2020] within a period of one
week from today.
8. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of. The application
for stay is also disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PRATEEK JALAN, J
DECEMBER 3, 2020
pk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:07.12.2020 12:20
