SPICEJET LTD Vs. SIESTA HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') the appellant SpiceJet Ltd. (in short 'SpiceJet') impugns the order of 07.12.2017 by a learned Single Judge. The impugned order allowed a Section 34 petition challenging the arbitration award of a Tribunal dated 06.12.2014.

(2.) Briefly, the facts for this appeal are that SpiceJet, which operates air carriage services to and from various destinations in India, needed residential accommodation for its crew in various cities. In the year 2007, it had contacted Siesta (which provides hospitality services). SpiceJet wished to avail Siesta's corporate residency facilities. After negotiation, inspection and exchange of e-mail, SpiceJet started availing the facilities provided by Siesta to it, at two locations i.e. Malad and Powai, Mumbai. Later, on 14.02008, SpiceJet and Siesta, signed a Service Agreement for supply of corporate residence facilities at Bangalore/Mumbai/ Chennai/Gurgaon/ Delhi and other locales in India, on agreed terms and conditions stipulated, in the Service Agreement ("the service agreement" hereafter). The service agreement contained an arbitration clause. Due to disputes, a reference came to be made to a sole Arbitral Tribunal.

(3.) Siesta claimed a sum of Rs. 2,27,38,059/- for the alleged unpaid rentals from 31.12.2007 to 28.02.2010 besides interest, in all amounting to Rs. 3,33,18,913/- with interest. The claim proceeded on the ground that the properties at Powai and Malad were covered by the Service Agreement. This was disputed to by SpiceJet. The parties led rival evidence on whether the properties at Powai and Malad were governed by the Service Agreement.