M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Ltd. Vs. Orient Lites
Facts of the Case
The petitioner is in the business of running a 5-star hotel by the name of Leela Ambience in Delhi whereas the respondent is engaged in the lighting equipment industry but is, however, unregistered. Petitioner issued various letters of award for the supply of lighting equipment at its hotel project on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letters of the award. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
According to the terms of the contract, 100% payment was to be made against the delivery of goods delivered in good condition at the site within five days. According to the respondent, it supplied electric equipment to the petitioner from 30.03.2011 to 28.03.2013 and alleged that certain bills remained unpaid. Therefore, the respondent issued a notice alleging that bills amounting to Rs. 79,58,546/ remained unpaid and called upon the petitioner to make the payment. Therefore, the respondent again issued a notice dated 05.08.2015 for making payment of the due amount of Rs. 79,58,546/ and called upon the petitioner to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of clause 10 of the Letter of Award dated 25.02.2012 for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the respondent filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the appointment of Arbitrator which was allowed vide order dated 23.09.2016. Therefore, Ld Arbitrator passed the award dated 15.12.2017 against the petitioner.
The petitioner has contested that the arbitrator has announced an award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 that is beyond the dispute raised and has erred in the passing of his award by not taking cognizance of the fact that there were 7 agreements between the two parties.
The judgment of the Court
It is evident from the graph that the cumulative sum of Rs. 51,44,090/-was paid by the petitioner to the respondents. Until 24.09.2012, a sum equivalent to Rs. 46,01,559/-was payable only and since the transactions are much more than that on the issue date of the comparison note in August 2015, there is no question that there has been no reimbursement for the past bills before 24.09.2012 and thus the charges raised afterward were listed in the notice. When filing the written statement, the complainant also presented a map indicating the total amount of receipts released by the respondents. It is important to note here M/s Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd Vs. Orients Lites Page No. 26 of 29 that, also since the deduction of the previous bills, the certain surplus sum of roughly Rs. 5.00000/-was remaining and that was also to be modified for the additional expenses from 24.09.2012. It is important to note that it's in the interests of the complainant.
The diligent review of all the bills displayed in the grant, i.e. from 24.09.2012 to 28.03.2013, falls under the framework of the mother's agreement of 25.02.2012. It is clear that the receipts marked 05.02.2013, 13.02.2013, and 28.03.2013 also weren't listed in the comparison note. In that respect, it is specified that the conflict for comparison must be taken from the arrangement which has been negotiated here between entities. In the current case, marked 25.02.2012, which included all 3 amends, M/s Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd Vs. Orients Lites Page No. 27 of 29, thus, the omission to include three of the bills in the related document could not have prejudiced the applicant in any way as he understood the extent of the conflict and was informed of the signs presented in the light of the signature of the contract marked 25.02.2012. It could be said, by no reasonable measure, that the Ld Arbitrator had passed the award beyond reference.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.