TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal battle over Luxury Tourist Train lease termination resolved through arbitration under Arbitration Act 1996</h1> <h3>Cox & Kings Ltd. Versus Indian Rly. Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Anr.</h3> The dispute involved the termination of a lease agreement for a Luxury Tourist Train by IRCTC, leading to legal proceedings seeking interim relief under ... - Issues Involved:1. Termination of Lease Agreement2. Interim Relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963. Ownership and Operation of the Luxury Tourist Train4. Appointment of Receiver and Continuation of Train Operations5. Appeal against the Single Judge's Order6. Special Leave Petitions and Final JudgmentSummary:1. Termination of Lease Agreement:The dispute arose when the Respondent, IRCTC, terminated the lease arrangement with the Petitioner for the operation of the Luxury Tourist Train, Maharaja Express, citing various grounds, including non-payment of dues.2. Interim Relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:The Petitioner initiated proceedings u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to stay the termination of the lease agreement and to allow the continuation of operations till April 2012, citing significant investments and potential loss of goodwill.3. Ownership and Operation of the Luxury Tourist Train:The Petitioner argued that the Joint Venture Agreement implied a partnership and that the train was partnership property. However, the Division Bench noted that the train was owned by IRCTC, and the Joint Venture Company was formed for its management and operation.4. Appointment of Receiver and Continuation of Train Operations:The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court appointed a Receiver to oversee the operation of the train to prevent discontinuation, considering public interest and advance bookings. The train was to be run under the Receiver's supervision from 14th September 2011 to 31st December 2011.5. Appeal against the Single Judge's Order:IRCTC challenged the Single Judge's order, and the Division Bench set aside the arrangement, stating that the mandatory injunction would create an agreement between the Joint Venture Company and IRCTC, which was not permissible. The Division Bench suggested that IRCTC should operate the train, honoring existing bookings, and manage revenues and expenses through a separate account.6. Special Leave Petitions and Final Judgment:The Petitioner filed Special Leave Petitions against the Division Bench's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, agreeing with the Division Bench's suggestions for IRCTC to operate the train and allowing the parties to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal to resolve their disputes. The Court emphasized that the observations made should not influence the arbitral proceedings and directed the parties to bear their own costs. The Contempt Petitions were also dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
