Full Text
Translation output
L
$-3 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P.88/2012
CHOICE HOSPITALITY(INDIA)PVT LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Manish Srivastava, Adv.
$-3 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P.88/2012
CHOICE HOSPITALITY(INDIA)PVT LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Manish Srivastava, Adv.
VERSUS
BHATNAGAR HOTEL & RESORT LIMITED Respondent Thi'ough Mjf.Pramod gupta, Adv.with Mr.Udit
Gupta, Adv.
Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
12.04.2013 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(5) of the Aibitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
The case ofthe petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 23'^'' November, 2001 whereby the petitioner granted the respondent the non-exclusive rights and license to establish and operate "Hotel Hawa Mahal" with the brand name "Comfort lim". The agreement was to terminate on the tenth anniversary ofthe date of start of the operation of the Hotel and the parties at liberty to extend or renew for a further period of ten years by a written agreement. By addendum dated 19"^ August, 2006, the term of franchise agreement was extended till C August, 2016. In consideration of the franchise rights granted by the agreement, the respondent also paid to the petitioner a non-
2013:DHC:8368 refundable initial franchise fees @US$200 per hotel room i.e. for 40rooms.
By addendum dated 19"' August, 2006,the parties amended the Franchise
Agreement dated 23"^" November, 2001 whereby it was agreed that the respondentshall pay to the petitioner afixed franchise and marketing seiwice fee of?50,000/- per month with effectfr
'om 1®^ August,2006.
It is stated in the petition that the respondent failed to pay regular payments offees pertaining to Fixed Franchise Service Fee and Mai-keting
Fee. Despite of repeated requests, the respondent failed to clear- the outstanding dues. By notice of termination dated 6"' July, 2010, the respondent sought to terminate the Franchise Agreement dated 23'"
November,2001 in violation ofterms and conditions ofthe said agreement and addendum dated 19"'August,2006. By notice dated ?"'October,2010, it was intimated to the respondent that the same constitutes material breach ofthe terms and conditions ofthe said agreement and in the event offailure on the part of the respondent to withdraw the said notice, the petitioner would be entitled to recover an amount equivalent to ?60,25,294/- towar'ds damages. However, the respondent failed to comply with the said notice and has neither withdr-awn the letter dated 6"' July, 2010 nor has paid the said amount.
There is an existing agreement between the parties. Agreement contains the arbitration clause. As far as prayer made in the petition is concerned, the respondent has no objection. Counsel for both the parties have suggested names ofthe arbitrators on behalfoftheir respective clients.
After having considered the names given by the parties, Mr.Sudhir
Nandrajog,Sr. Advocate,is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The fee shall be paid to the sole ar-biti'ator as per mles of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. The Arbihator shall conduct the proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall give prior notice before commencing the proceedings. The petition is disposed ofin the above said terms.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Aihitrator forthwith. Copies ofthe same be also given dasti to the learned counselsfor the parties.
'V ■ APRIL 12,2013/jk
MANMOHAK SINGH,J.>
12.04.2013 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(5) of the Aibitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
The case ofthe petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 23'^'' November, 2001 whereby the petitioner granted the respondent the non-exclusive rights and license to establish and operate "Hotel Hawa Mahal" with the brand name "Comfort lim". The agreement was to terminate on the tenth anniversary ofthe date of start of the operation of the Hotel and the parties at liberty to extend or renew for a further period of ten years by a written agreement. By addendum dated 19"^ August, 2006, the term of franchise agreement was extended till C August, 2016. In consideration of the franchise rights granted by the agreement, the respondent also paid to the petitioner a non-
2013:DHC:8368 refundable initial franchise fees @US$200 per hotel room i.e. for 40rooms.
By addendum dated 19"' August, 2006,the parties amended the Franchise
Agreement dated 23"^" November, 2001 whereby it was agreed that the respondentshall pay to the petitioner afixed franchise and marketing seiwice fee of?50,000/- per month with effectfr
'om 1®^ August,2006.
It is stated in the petition that the respondent failed to pay regular payments offees pertaining to Fixed Franchise Service Fee and Mai-keting
Fee. Despite of repeated requests, the respondent failed to clear- the outstanding dues. By notice of termination dated 6"' July, 2010, the respondent sought to terminate the Franchise Agreement dated 23'"
November,2001 in violation ofterms and conditions ofthe said agreement and addendum dated 19"'August,2006. By notice dated ?"'October,2010, it was intimated to the respondent that the same constitutes material breach ofthe terms and conditions ofthe said agreement and in the event offailure on the part of the respondent to withdraw the said notice, the petitioner would be entitled to recover an amount equivalent to ?60,25,294/- towar'ds damages. However, the respondent failed to comply with the said notice and has neither withdr-awn the letter dated 6"' July, 2010 nor has paid the said amount.
There is an existing agreement between the parties. Agreement contains the arbitration clause. As far as prayer made in the petition is concerned, the respondent has no objection. Counsel for both the parties have suggested names ofthe arbitrators on behalfoftheir respective clients.
After having considered the names given by the parties, Mr.Sudhir
Nandrajog,Sr. Advocate,is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The fee shall be paid to the sole ar-biti'ator as per mles of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. The Arbihator shall conduct the proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall give prior notice before commencing the proceedings. The petition is disposed ofin the above said terms.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Aihitrator forthwith. Copies ofthe same be also given dasti to the learned counselsfor the parties.
'V ■ APRIL 12,2013/jk
MANMOHAK SINGH,J.>
JUDGMENT