AMOUR BANQUETS PRIVATE LIMITED vs OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 788/2023
AMOUR BANQUETS PRIVATE LIMITED …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Ghuja and Mr. Pavan Chaturvedi, Advocates

versus

OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PRIVATE
LIMITED AND ANOTHER …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Hardik Kaushik and Ms. Adrija Mishra, Advocates

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 02.08.2024

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 for reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

2. The dispute arises in the context of a Management Services Agreement2 dated 8 June 2019, which was amended by an addendum dated 10 September 2019. Under the MSA, the respondent was to provide services to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the allegedly illegal termination of the MSA by the respondent. The petitioner further alleges that certain amounts due to the petitioner from the respondent are outstanding.

3. The demand of the petitioner against the respondent is in the region of ? 1.7 to 2 Crores.

4. The MSA admittedly envisages resolution of disputes by arbitration. The arbitration clause in the MSA, reads thus :

“ARTICLE 10 : DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND GOVERNING LAWS

10.1 Arbitration : Any dispute arising out of this Agreement and the obligation thereunder (“Dispute”) shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The parties agree that the Dispute shall be adjudicated by a mutually appointed single arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English language and seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi.”

5. The petitioner addressed a notice to the respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 15 May 2023, to which there was no response. The petitioner has accordingly moved this Court under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for reference of the disputes to arbitration.

6. The respondent has filed a reply to the present petition, in which, primarily, two objections have been raised. The first is that the claims of the petitioner are barred by time, and the second is that Respondent 2 cannot be included in the arbitral proceedings in view of the Addendum dated 10 September 2019, whereunder all liabilities and obligations of Respondent 2 were taken over by Respondent 1.

7. Mr. Aditya Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly acknowledges this Addendum and submits that, in view thereof, the petitioner would be seeking arbitration only vis-à-vis Respondent 1.

8. Equally, fairly, Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning3, he is willing to agitate the aspect of limitation before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

9. In view thereof, this Court, therefore, appoints Mr. Bhaskar Bhardwaj, Adv. (Mob: 9350799937) as the Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.

10. The arbitration would be between the petitioner and Respondent 1.

11. The fees of the learned Arbitrator would be fixed in consultation with the parties.

12. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to submit the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.

13. This Court has not expressed any opinion on any aspect of the matter, preliminary or on merits.

14. All issues of fact and law shall be open for agitation before the learned Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law.

15. The respondent would be at liberty to raise any counter-claim before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law.

16. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 2, 2024/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

1 1996 Act
2 MSA
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754
—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————

ARB. P. 788/2023 Page 1 of 4