Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd Vs Nikhil Bhalla (Delhi High Court)
The case at hand involves cross-appeals filed under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the A&C Act). The appeals challenge an order dated 11.09.2023, passed by the learned Commercial Court. This order rejected the application filed by M/s Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as OSPL) under Section 8 of the A&C Act in CS(COMM) No.288/2020, captioned Nikhil Bhalla v. M/s Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd.
The learned Commercial Court acknowledged the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties as per Clause 14 of the terms and conditions (hereafter referred to as the Terms and Conditions) incorporated in the Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement (hereafter referred to as MOCA) between the parties. However, it held that the arbitration agreement only covered disputes concerning the “construction,” “interpretation,” or “application” of any provisions of the MOCA. Since the dispute in the suit filed by Mr. Nikhil Bhalla (hereafter referred to as NB) concerned non-compliance with the terms of the MOCA, the arbitration agreement did not cover the said disputes.
OSPL has appealed against this finding [FAO(COMM) No.212/2023], contending that the learned Commercial Court erred in its conclusion that the arbitration agreement did not cover the dispute. Conversely, NB has appealed [FAO(COMM) No.243/2023], contesting the finding that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties.
Factual Context
OSPL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, involved in providing services to establishments in the hospitality industry, helping them grow their business by listing their properties on OSPL’s online platform. NB operates a hotel named “The Spruce Mansion” in Manali, Himachal Pradesh. The parties entered into the MOCA on 27.07.2018, which was digitally accepted. NB claims the agreement was novated twice, first on 16.09.2018 and then on 28.11.2018.
