Oravel Styas Private Limited vs Kota Hotels Federation , Through ...
2020 Latest Caselaw 452 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                           Decided on: 23rdJanuary 2020

+                   CS(OS) 425/2019
      ORAVEL STAYS PVT. LTD.                       ..... Plaintiff
                    Represented by:Mr. Kshitij Parashar, Advovate
                    versus
      KOTA HOTELS FEDERATION
      THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ORS                           ..... Defendant
                    Represented by: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Summons in the present suit were issued vide order dated 21st August 2019. Defendant No's 1 to 3 were served. However, none appeared on their behalf. Thus, defendants are proceeded ex-parte.

2. By the present suit, the Plaintiff, inter alia, prays for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its officers and agents including Defendant No's 2 and 3 for deliberately, unlawfully, wrongly, maliciously and otherwise causing tortious interference in plaintiff's business by boycotting and causing the hotel partners of the plaintiff to boycott "OYO Rooms" and cost.

3. Plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, is working in hospitality sector doing the business of standardizing unbranded budget hotels, bread and breakfasts and guest houses as per its specification through online and offline channel. Plaintiff has its presence over 230 cities in India consisting of over 9000 hotels and over 2,20,000 rooms globally

including India which can be booked using Plaintiffs online platform/mobile. It collects the information about hotels through online network and connects with them by signing contracts on partnership basis to sell its services under its own brand, assuring uniform quality and price. Plaintiff also shares a certain percentage of the revenue for bookings made under the Plaintiffs brand name as per the contract agreed upon.

4. Plaintiff by way of an agreement is permitted by the hotelier/service provider to have full control over pricing and any booking brought in by the hotel. The agreement also gives the Plaintiff full authority to determine and publish room tariffs on its website and/or mobile application as per dynamic pricing module. Through the agreement, the service provider/hotelier agrees to abide by the standard quality of rooms and promising services to its guests. The agreement also allows both the parties to address issues arising under the contract and to amicably resolve the same.

5. Defendant No. 1 is a federation claiming to represent the interest of the hoteliers based in Kota, Rajasthan who are also associated with various online booking portals including the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is the President whereas Defendant No. 3 is the general secretary of Defendant No.

1. It is the case of the plaintiff in the present suit that the hotel owners who entered into the agreement with the plaintiff have connived with Defendant No. 1 and are not accepting bookings made through Plaintiffs online platform/mobile application, thereby failing to abide by the contract and amicably resolving the issues. The hoteliers have neither terminated the agreement nor they have sought any modification of the terms. Defendant No. 1 and its officers are emboldening and persuading the hoteliers to boycott Plaintiff and refuse to honor the bookings made through plaintiffs'

portal. Defendant No. 1 is also colluding with other associations and encouraging them to come forward to protest against the Plaintiff to fulfill their unwarranted, illegal demands thereby bringing Plaintiffs business to complete halt.

6. The relation between the plaintiff and the associated hoteliers is purely contractual and the hoteliers are at their free will to decide if they wish to continue their contracts with the plaintiff. However, during the existence of the said contractneither the hotels associated are allowed to dishonor their bookings nor the Defendant No. 1 is allowed to coerce or induce the hotel owners to boycott the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff learnt that on 7th August 2019, the defendants filed a complaint with Vigyan Nagar Police Station, Kota whereby allegations were made against the plaintiff that it is charging amounts from the hoteliers for bookings that are cancelled by the customers, it is arbitrarily deducting amounts from the hoteliers on property label adjustments and it is also deducting commission and platform charges from the amounts being paid to the hoteliers. The aforesaid false and malafide allegations were made by the defendants in order to coerce the plaintiff into giving into the illegal and arbitrary demands of the defendants.

8. The defendants by resorting to illegal and threatening methods have interfered in the business of plaintiff and have also induced its hoteliers to breach the terms of contract with plaintiff. The plaintiff has privity of contract solely with the hotel owners and the dispute between them are to be addressed as per the agreement between the parties. Therefore, the defendants have no basis for initiating any action against the plaintiff.

9. The hotel owners are now exploiting and harassing the customers by cancelling their bookings and in order to secure their bookings the customers shall be constrained to give in to the illegal and the inflated demands made by the hotel owners. The police officer of Vigyan Nagar Police Station, Kota issued a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. upon the plaintiff to submit the documents with them with respect to complaints of the defendants.

10. The actions taken by the defendants and the hotels associated with them have been widely publicized and has also been reported in various leading daily newspapers. The said news articles and the factum of boycott is also being circulated on Twitter by various hotel owners.

11. From the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint as also the documents enclosed with the plaint along with the necessary certificate, the plaintiff has clearly made out a case for grant of injunction in terms of prayer (a) and (c) as the defendants have not only caused considerable loss to the plaintiff's business but has caused inconvenience to public at large and has also caused prejudice in the mind of the consumers.

12. Plaintiff does not press the prayer (b). Hence no decree in terms of prayer (b) can be passed.

13. As regards cost, the plaintiff has not filed an affidavit indicating the actual cost incurred by the plaintiff, however the court-fee paid by the plaintiff amounts to ₹1,98,520.

14. Suit is accordingly decreed in terms of prayer (a) and (c) of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Cost of ₹1,98,520 is awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally.

I.A. 11375/2019 (u/O XXXIX R 1&2 CPC by P) Disposed of as infructuous.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY23, 2020 'sk'