Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Spicejet in Spicejet Ltd. vs Siesta Hospitality Services Ltd. on 27 August, 2018Matching Fragments
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') the appellant SpiceJet Ltd. (in short 'SpiceJet') impugns the order of 07.12.2017 by a learned Single Judge. The impugned order allowed a Section 34 petition challenging the arbitration award of a Tribunal dated 06.12.2014.
2. Briefly, the facts for this appeal are that SpiceJet, which operates air carriage services to and from various destinations in India, needed residential accommodation for its crew in various cities. In the year 2007, it had contacted Siesta (which provides hospitality services). SpiceJet wished to avail Siesta's corporate residency facilities. After negotiation, inspection and exchange of e-mail, SpiceJet started availing the facilities provided by Siesta to it, at two locations i.e. Malad and Powai, Mumbai. Later, on 14.02.2008, SpiceJet and Siesta, signed a Service Agreement for supply of corporate residence facilities at Bangalore/Mumbai/ Chennai/Gurgaon/ Delhi and other locales in India, on agreed terms and conditions stipulated, in the Service Agreement ("the service agreement" hereafter). The service agreement contained an arbitration clause. Due to disputes, a reference came to be made to a sole Arbitral Tribunal.
3. Siesta claimed a sum of `2,27,38,059/- for the alleged unpaid rentals from 31.12.2007 to 28.02.2010 besides interest, in all amounting to `3,33,18,913/- with interest. The claim proceeded on the ground that the properties at Powai and Malad were covered by the Service Agreement. This was disputed to by SpiceJet. The parties led rival evidence on whether the properties at Powai and Malad were governed by the Service Agreement. The Tribunal held that the properties at Powai and Malad were not subject matter of the Service Agreement. The reasons and the conclusions so given in the award are, as follows:
7. Siesta's argument was that for the facilities provided by it to SpiceJet prior to the execution of the Service Agreement, the emails exchanged had set out the terms and conditions. Siesta urged that such terms and conditions of providing facilities, were never subject to review on the execution of the Service Agreement.
8. Counsel for SpiceJet argued that the Single Judge erred in law, in concluding that since the annexure was not referred to, the two properties were involved and further that two letters too were not adverted, the award could not be sustained, is clearly contrary to the record. It was submitted that the question of contract interpretation is within the exclusive domain of an arbitrator, which should rarely, if never, be interdicted under Section 34 proceedings and that there was no patent error of law, warranting interference with the award.