Delhi High Court
Royale Blue Club Private Limited, vs Oyo Hotels And Homes Private ... on 30 July, 2020
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 189/2020 and I.As.5727-5728/2020
ROYALE BLUE CLUB PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, Mr.
Sunil Kr. Gandhi, Mr. Dipender
Chauhan, Mr. Kunal Kumar and
Mr. Shobhit Chandra Sharma,
Advs.
versus
OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PRIVATE LTD. .... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 30.07.2020
(Video-conferencing)
1. The prayer clause, in this petition, preferred under Section 9 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, reads thus :
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass in favour of the
Petitioner and against the Respondent, ad-interim ex-parte
orders against the Respondent, their agents, employees,
associates, etc. or any other person claiming through the
Respondent:
a) to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the said
Venue to the Petitioner and;
b) to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,24,80,000/-
towards the Benchmark Revenue Management Fee, from
March 2020 to July 2020 alongwith interest @ 24% per
annum,
c) to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,50,000
towards utility charges, from March 2020 to July 2020
alongwith interest @ 24% per annum
d) to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 3,51,60,000
towards remaining lock in period for Benchmark
Revenue/Management and damages,
or
in the alternative secure and safeguard the said amount of
Rs.5,07,90,000 by depositing the same in the form of Fixed
deposit or bank guarantee before this Hon'ble Court.
e) to restrain from transferring , alienating or
encumbering, in any manner whatsoever, any of the assets of
the Respondent;
f) to attachment of the Bank Accounts and assets of
Respondent, to be disclosed by the Respondent by way of an
affidavit, being in its knowledge, for an amount of Rs.
5,07,90,000 ;
g) to pay the petitioner cost of the present petition.
Pass/make such other appropriate orders and/or
directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Apropos prayer (a), Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent submits, on instructions, that his client
had, in fact handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the
property in dispute, to the petitioner, in March, 2020, save and except
for the pantry areas on the ground and the first floors and one
office/store room. He submits that his client is willing to hand over
vacant and peaceful possession of the said pantry areas and the
office/store room during the course of the day.
3. As such, submits Mr. Mehta, with the handing over of the
aforesaid pantry areas and office/store room, the vacant and peaceful
possession of the entire property in dispute would stand handed over
to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that he is willing to take possession of the areas of which
possession has not been handed over to his client, within 24 hours, at a
time to be fixed by this Court. He, however, disputes the submission,
of Mr. Mehta, that possession of the remaining areas of the property
was handed over in March, 2020 and submits that, according to him,
possession would be handed over today or at the time fixed by this
Court as aforesaid.
5. In any event, with the handing over of possession as undertaken
by Mr. Mehta, prayer (a) in this petition would stand satisfied. This
Court is leaving the question of the date on which possession was
handed over open, and the parties would be at liberty to urge their
respective pleas in that regard during the arbitral proceedings, if
necessary and as advised.
6. Though Mr. Shivanshu Kumar submits that this Court may
adjudicate on the remaining prayers in the present petition, in my
opinion, the prayers (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) in this petition may
appropriately be adjudicated upon, by the learned Sole Arbitrator,
treating this petition as a petition under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
That apart, as this Court has already appointed a learned Sole
Arbitrator today, by consent of parties, so that, by operation of Section
9(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the prayers in this
petition would be required to be examined and decided by the learned
Sole Arbitrator.
7. The present petition may therefore, be returned to the petitioner
to be presented before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who would treat it
as a petition under Section 17 of the 1996 Act and proceed to decide
the same in accordance with law.
8. At this juncture, Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, exhorts this Court to
seek leave to refer to various news reports and other documents as
well as judicial orders passed by this Court in other proceedings
against the respondent, to bring out the fact that the respondent is in a
financially weak condition.
9. In my view, the said documents and material could, with equal
felicity, be shown to the learned Sole Arbitrator, who would take them
into consideration while examining the present petition, under Section
17 of the 1996 Act. The petitioner is at liberty to do so.
10. For the purposes of handing over of the property by the
respondent to the petitioner, the respondent would visit the premises
of the petitioner tomorrow i.e. 31st July, 2020 at 11 a.m.
11. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms and
with the aforesaid directions.
I.A.5727/2020 and I.A.5728/2020 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 189/2020
1. In view of the disposal of O.M.P.(I) (COMM) 189/2020, these
applications are also stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JULY 30, 2020/kr
