ORAVEL STAYS PVT. LTD. Vs. NIKHIL BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are cross-appeals filed under Sec. 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning an order dtd. 11/9/2023 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Commercial Court rejecting the application filed by M/s. Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter OSPL) under Sec. 8 of the A&C Act in CS(COMM) No.288/2020 captioned Nikhil Bhalla v. M/s Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd.

(2.) The learned Commercial Court had accepted that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties in terms of Clause 14 of the terms and conditions (hereafter the Terms and Conditions) incorporated as a part of the Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement (hereafter the MOCA) entered between the parties. However, the learned Commercial Court held that the said arbitration agreement (arbitration clause) covered only those disputes that concern the 'construction', 'interpretation' or 'application' of any of the provisions of the MOCA. The learned Commercial Court reasoned that since, the dispute involved in the suit filed by the appellant, Mr Nikhil Bhalla (hereafter NB) concerned non-compliance of the terms of the MOCA, the arbitration agreement did not cover the said disputes.

(3.) OSPL has filed the present appeal [FAO(COMM) No.212/2023] being aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that the learned Commercial Court had found that the arbitration agreement between the parties did not cover the dispute involved in CS(COMM) No.288/2020. NB has also appealed the impugned order [FAO(COMM) No.243/2023] being aggrieved by the finding that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. According to NB, Clause 14 of the Terms and Conditions (the arbitration clause) could not be construed as specifically incorporated in the MOCA. He claims that MOCA was accepted digitally. The link provided by OSPL for reference to the terms and conditions applicable to the MOCA did not lead to the said Terms and Conditions, which contained the said arbitration clause. He contends that the arbitration clause could not be read as a part of the MOCA, as there was no specific reference to the arbitration agreement in the MOCA, which was digitally signed by the parties.