Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. In the rejoinder, the petitioners have denied allegations, averments or contentions incorporated in the reply. It is asserted in the rejoinder that it is misleading to say that the agreements giving rise to the present proceedings were terminated as far back as January, 1999. It is also mentioned that only the Technical Services Agreement was purportedly terminated by the respondents on 13.1.1999, without providing the petitioners with the 30-days notice period as required by the TSA. Petitioner No. 1 sent an interim response to the respondents on 2.2.1999, denying the allegations that petitioner No. 2 breached the TSA. This response also asserted that the TSA contained in full force and effect that the attempted termination had not been undertaken in good faith and was not enforceable against petitioner No. 2. This was followed by a detailed response on 26.2.1999 to the various points raised in the respondents' letter of 13.1.1999. Accordingly, the allegation that the petition was 'hopelessly barred due to delay and laches' is untenable. It is also mentioned that the petitioners first became aware that the respondents were negotiating with ITC Hotels Ltd. through the newspaper reports dated 27.2.1999 and 18.3.1999.

23. In the rejoinder the petitioners denied the allegations that they were ignorant of requirements of running a hotel in India or the petitioners have failed to advise and assist the respondent adequately or displayed a lack of understanding. It is mentioned that the petitioners franchise three hotels in India at Mumbai, Hyderabad and Goa and is about to open the first Marriott managed hotel in Goa. In addition, three more Marriott managed hotels are under construction in India. Petitioner No. 2 provided respondent No. 1 with the services specified in their agreement so that the respondents could design and build a first class, full service international hotel in accordance with Marriott International standards that could be operated under the Marriott name.

87. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of injunction is made out. in case if the award is ultimately given in favour of the petitioners, they can always be compensated in terms of money.

88. In the rejoinder, the petitioners have denied the allegations , averments, contentions and submissions contained in the reply which are not only contrary to or inconsistent with the facts, averments and submissions set forth in the petition but also are vague, lack in material particulars and are imprecise and therefore, it is submitted that the same cannot be taken into consideration by this court.

100. It is mentioned in the rejoinder that the purported transaction of TSA and Hotel Operating Agreements and the Additional Marriott Agreements by respondent No.1 is wholly wrong for the reasons set out in the petition, particularly the letters dated 2nd and 26th February, 1999 and 12.3.1999. The averments regarding inadequate performance by the petitioners of their contractual obligations have been denied. It is mentioned in the rejoinder that Marriott currently franchises 3 Hotels in India (Mumbai, Hyderabad and Goa) and is about to open the first Marriott managed Hotel in Goa. In addition three more Marriott managed Hotels are under construction in India.