2014 (2) TMI 1425 - HC - Indian Laws

Court grants exemption subject to conditions in dispute over encroachment for SPA. Arbitration award challenged. License renewal issues.

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd. Versus. Indian Tourism Development Corporation

The court allowed the application for exemption subject to specific conditions. The judgment detailed a dispute over alleged encroachment for setting up ... Seeking to restrain the Respondent from initiating any process of eviction/dispossession against the Petitioner from the said premises in possession and occupation of the Petitioner - also, seeking to restrain from going ahead with the process of calling for tenders vis-a-vis the said premises in possession and occupation of the Petitioner. HELD THAT:- In the case of Pioneer Publicity Corporation vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [2003 (2) TMI 403 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI], this Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr. Vikramajit Sen, J. on the objections raised by the respondents therein under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act coming into play in these types of cases has held Keeping in view the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2 it is no longer possible to contend that the Court does not possess power to prohibit or prevent the breach of contract. If this is possible in the realm of private contracts, it is an obligation in the realm of public enterprises. Furthermore, the provisions of Specific Relief Act relied upon by Ms. Singh are not attracted for the simple reason that the contract itself prohibits the claim of grant of compensation. Issue notice to the respondent, on filing of process fee and Regd. A.D. Covers within a week, returnable on 20th March, 2014. Issues:1. Application for exemption2. Dispute over termination notice and prayers sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963. Dispute regarding alleged encroachment in premises for setting up SPA and Health Club4. Efforts to resolve disputes, appointment of Local Commissioner, and findings regarding encroachment5. Arbitration proceedings, award in favor of petitioner, and challenge by respondent under Section 346. Renewal of License Agreement, conditions for renewal, and challenges to Licensing Policy7. Application for disposal of OMP due to license expiration and termination notice8. Dispute over renewal conditions, payments, and compliance with Unit Licensing Committee recommendations9. Challenge to Licensing Policy of 2013 and termination notice10. Comparison with similar cases of automatic license renewal11. Legal precedents on breach of contract and specific performanceAnalysis:1. The judgment begins with an application for exemption being allowed, subject to specific exemptions, followed by details of a termination notice delivered to the petitioner and prayers sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The case involves a dispute between the petitioner and respondent regarding alleged encroachment in premises for setting up an SPA and Health Club, with efforts made to resolve disputes, appointment of a Local Commissioner, and findings regarding encroachment.3. Details of arbitration proceedings, an award in favor of the petitioner, and the respondent's challenge under Section 34 are provided, along with the implications of the pending petition on the petitioner's liability.4. The renewal of the License Agreement, conditions for renewal, challenges to the Licensing Policy, and subsequent termination notice are discussed, including compliance with Unit Licensing Committee recommendations and payment status.5. The petitioner's challenge to the Licensing Policy of 2013, termination notice, and comparison with similar cases of automatic license renewal are highlighted, along with legal precedents on breach of contract and specific performance.6. The judgment concludes with the issuance of notice to the respondent, a directive against coercive actions, and procedural instructions for the next hearing date.