SIESTA HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD Vs. SPICEJET LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed by the petitioner Siesta Hospitality Services Ltd. challenging the Arbitral Award dated 06.12.2014 passed by the Sole Arbitrator dismissing the claim filed by the petitioner holding as under :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the same in as much as the Arbitrator has not only failed to consider "Annexure-I" to the Service Agreement dated 14.02.2008 executed between the parties to the present petition, but also the reply dated 17.12.2008 sent by counsel for the respondent to the legal notice dated 10.11.2008 of the petitioner and the letter dated 18.02.2010 of the counsel for the respondent agreeing to the amendment of the Arbitration Clause contained in the Service Agreement and agreeing to the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.

(3.) It is submitted that the Arbitrator, himself being appointed under the Service Agreement could not have concluded that the Service Agreement itself is inapplicable to the disputes between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to the reply to the statement of claim filed by the respondent herein to contend that even in the reply, the plea taken was not that the Service Agreement is not applicable to the claim of the petitioner, but that the Service Agreement was void for uncertainty.