Delhi High Court
Oyo Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs Parveen Juneja & Ors. on 28 April, 2022
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th April, 2022
+ ARB.P. 332/2020
OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevan Ballav Panda, Ms. Shalini Sati Prasad
and Ms. Mehar Tandon, Advocates (through VC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr.
P.K. Rawal and Mr. Manashuy Jha,Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. Petitioner seeks reference of disputes to a Sole Arbitrator under
a Lease Deed dated 23.10.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lease deed,
particularly Clause 12.9 refers to an additional document being an
Assets Purchase Agreement dated 23.10.2019 which has also been
executed between the parties. Learned counsel submits that both the
documents contain a similar arbitration clauses and disputes have
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:28.04.2022
Signing Date:29.04.2022 11:31:08 22:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
arisen and they are liable to be referred to a Sole Arbitrator.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent disputes
the contentions and submits that the lease deed itself stipulates that the
property has been handed over on 'as is where is basis' and further
submits that the respective obligations under the Assets Purchase
Agreement have been duly performed and as such there is no dispute
surviving that is referable to the arbitration.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that claim is a mere deadwood
and as such cannot be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal.
5. I am unable to accept the contentions of learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent for the reason that the claim sought to be raised in
the petition are over and above the Assets Purchase Agreement and
also refer to certain obligations that were allegedly required to be
performed by the respondent and have not been performed leading to
the termination of the agreement on account of the alleged defaults of
the respondent.
6. In any event, a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 this Court is not to go into the merits of the
claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties. This Court has to
examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the
parties and there are any disputes unless exfacie it is apparent from the
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:28.04.2022
Signing Date:29.04.2022 11:31:08 22:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
record that the disputes are a mere deadwood.
7. There is no dispute that the lease deed as well as the Assets
Purchase Agreement dated 23.10.2019 were executed by the parties.
Both the agreements contain an arbitration clauses requiring the
disputes to be referred to arbitration.
8. Whether the claim of the petitioner survives or has been duly
satisfied is an issue that will be required to be adjudicated upon by the
Arbitration Tribunal.
9. Reliance placed by the Senior Counsel for the respondent on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in "M.R. Engineers & Contractors
Pvt. Ltd. versus Som Datt Builders Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 696", is
misplaced for the reasons the issue involved in the said judgment were
with regard to incorporation of an arbitration agreement by reference
in terms of Section 7 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
10. In the present case, both the lease deed as well as the Assets
Purchase Agreement contain similar arbitration clauses. Further, the
lease deed specifically stipulates that parties have entered into an
Assets Purchase Agreement which was attached as a Schedule-H to
the lease deed.
11. This is not a case where the petitioner by implication seeks
incorporation of an arbitration clause in an agreement which does not
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:28.04.2022
Signing Date:29.04.2022 11:31:08 22:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
contain an arbitration clause. Said judgment is clearly not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
12. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties, petition is allowed and the disputes are referred to
arbitration.
13. With the consent of the parties, Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen,
former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (Mobile # +91
8447333366; +91 9818000290; email: [email protected]) is
appointed as the Sole Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the claims and
counter-claims, if any, of the parties.
14. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
15. The Arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under
section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two
weeks of entering reference.
16. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
also filed a petition under Section 9 being O.M.P. (I) 112/2021 and
petitioner would like to withdraw the said petition reserving the right
of the petitioner to approach the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:28.04.2022
Signing Date:29.04.2022 11:31:08 22:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
18. In view of the above, Registry is directed to list the petition
O.M.P. (I) 112/2021 for 29.04.2022.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL28, 2022
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:28.04.2022
Signing Date:29.04.2022 11:31:08 22:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
