Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. IGNCA also raised counter claims. IGNCA claimed that Aresko had breached the terms of the MOU and instead of running a guest house, Aresko had advertised the same as a Boutique Hotel named "Indravan" which was contrary to the terms of the MOU. Further, Aresko had inordinately delayed commissioning of the guest house and, therefore, IGNCA had to spend an aggregate sum amounting to `3,60,52,931/- on hosting various guests in other hotels and places. In addition, IGNCA also claimed user charges amounting to `3.64 crores; in terms of the MOU, user charges were payable after two months of signing of the MOU. In addition, IGNCA also made a claim for loss of credibility.

9. The Arbitrator also rejected the counter claims made by IGNCA. He held that since the guest house never became operational, the demand for the payment of user charges by the IGNCA would be "unfair". He also rejected the claim for reimbursement of the amounts claimed to have been incurred by IGNCA in hosting guests in other hotels.

10. However, in order to do equity between the parties, the Arbitrator directed that a sum of `40 lacs be paid to Aresko as consideration for furnishing and renovations carried out by Aresko. He further directed that the security money lying with IGNCA be refunded to Aresko subject to fulfilment of any condition stipulated for refund of the security deposit. Lastly, the Arbitrator directed Aresko to vacate the premises and handover the same to IGNCA within a period of one month failing which the Arbitrator directed Aresko to pay a daily fine of `30,000/-. He further directed the payment of interest at the rate of 10% by both parties for any delay in meeting their respective obligations.

21. Aresko's claim for loss of profits was also rightly rejected by the Arbitrator in view of his finding that Aresko was in breach of the MOU. The Arbitrator had noted that the NDMC's letter directing status quo to be maintained was issued on 08.02.2012, which was more than one and a half years after signing of the MOU and even by that time, Aresko had not commenced running of the guest house. The Arbitrator had held that NDMC's letter could not be the reason for Aresko's failure to commence running of the guest house within the time as specified. It also concluded that IGNCA was not responsible for the delay in operationalizing the guest house. The learned counsel appearing for Aresko has also not seriously contested the aforesaid finding and has not addressed any contention to canvass that IGNCA was responsible for any delay in operationalizing the guest house prior to the letter dated 08.02.2012. Thus, the Arbitrator's finding that Aresko was in breach of the MOU, cannot be faulted. There is also a serious dispute whether IGNCA was responsible for the status quo order issued by NDMC; IGNCA claims that the same was issued only because Aersko had advertised the guest house as a boutique hotel. The Arbitrator also found that IGNCA had submitted the necessary clearances and no grievance in this regard was raised at the material time. The Arbitrator's finding cannot be held to be perverse or not informed by reason and thus warrant no interference in these proceedings.

27. In view of the above, the impugned award to the extent that it directs levy of daily fine of `30,000/- for not handing over the guest house within one month from the date of the award is set aside. Further, since the claim for refund of security deposit has been left to IGNCA, it naturally follows that Aresko would be at liberty to seek recovery of the same and raise further disputes in the event the security deposit is appropriated against any unjustified charges. It is also clear that the security deposit cannot be appropriated against user charges because: (a) IGNCA's claim for user charges has been rejected and IGNCA has accepted the same; and (b) that Arbitrator has unequivocally held that levy of user charges would be unfair. In this view, IGNCA can appropriate the security deposit against non-fulfilment of other conditions as the Arbitrator had left the decision on IGNCA. However, if Aresko does not accept the same, it would be at liberty to contest the same in accordance with law.