LAWS(DLH)-1997-5-98

ITC LIMITED Vs. GAGANDEEP SINGH SODHI

Decided On May 01, 1997
ITC LIMITED Appellant
V/S
GAGANDEEP SINGH SODHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), averring that the petitioner is a Company, having its registered office at 37, Chowringhee, Calcutta and its Hotels Division WELCOMGROUP at W.G. Maurya Sheraton, Hotel & Towers Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and Shri M.M. Bhatnagar is the constituted attorney of the petitioner-Company who is competent to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the present proceedings on behalf of the petitioner-Company. It is averred that the petitioner-Company owns and operates a chain of other Hotels, situated at various places in this Country and runs a number of Hotels including Hotel Maurya Sheraton, Hotel and Towers at Delhi and about 15 other Hotels, popularly known as WELCOMGROUP of Hotels. The operation of these Hotels & Restaurants is a specialised operation, requiring considerable skill and knowledge in the field of hoteleering and catering. The petitioner, it is alleged, possesses expertise and knowhow in the sophisticated manufacturing process involved in the running of these Hotels & Restaurants.

(2.) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and since direct service was not possible on the respondents, the respondents were served by publication of notice in the daily "The Statesman' dated the 8th December, 1994. As the respondents did not care to appear despite the publication of the notice in the newspaper, they were directed to be proceeded ex-parte in the present proceedings by the learned Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 30.3.95.

(3.) The petitioner has adduced the evidence in support of its case by means of affidavit and has filed the affidavit of Shri Mohan Bhatnagar, constituted attorney of the petitioner by way of evidence. Said Shri Mohan Bhatnagar in his affidavit dated the 16th August, 1995, filed by way of evidence, has fully supported the case of the petitioner and has proved and exhibited the material documents including the Service Bond (Exhibit P-4) dated the 1st August, 1989.