Partly allowed

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Srinathji Caterers

Delhi HC18 Mar 2016FAO(OS)/317/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The underlying dispute involved a limitation plea regarding a security deposit refund. The High Court set aside the earlier order as it failed to address the limitation aspect, remitting the matter for a decision on bar of limitation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated January 27, 2015 set aside with a direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the issue of limitation.

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 317/2015

¶4

INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Nikhil Majithia, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S SRINATHJI CATERERS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Manish K.Bishnavi, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R % 18.03.2016

¶9

We have perused the pleadings before the learned Arbitrator as also in the petition filed by the appellant laying a challenge to the award.

¶10

At the forefront of the defence to the claim filed by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator was the bar of limitation pleaded.

¶11

Respondent was a successful bidder. Fifteen licences to manage catering services in fifteen trains were successfully obtained by the respondent. Respondent took over the catering services of two trains in the month of November, 2008 but did not take over the catering service expressing inability to do so alleging lack of infrastructure in the trains as also gangs operating which would not allow official caterers to provide catering services in the trains. On August 11, 2009 the appellant cancelled the licences for the two trains where catering services were taken over. No licence was executed qua thirteen trains because the respondent did not

¶12

FAO(OS) 317/2015

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

come forward. Issue arose between the parties when appellant refused to refund the security deposit pertaining to fifteen trains. On December 23, 2010 appellant refunded `83,35,470/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Only) and the reason is a decision taken for seven trains that refund was due. The refund was made on December 23, 2010.

¶15

It is in the backdrop aforesaid that issue of limitation raised.

¶16

Impugned order dated January 27, 2015 has not dealt with said aspect of the matter concerning challenge to the award. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that in the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, laying a challenge to the award dated September 23, 2014, apart from others, one challenge to the award was that the claims were barred by limitation.

¶17

Under the circumstances we dispose of the appeal setting aside the impugned order dated January 27, 2015. We restore OM No.87/2015 with a direction that issue concerning limitation would be decided by the learned Single Judge with reference to the award. Meaning thereby, validity of the award with reference to the issue of claims being barred by limitation would also be decided.

¶18

No costs.

¶19

CM No.11169/2015

¶20

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶22

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶23

MARCH 18, 2016/ skb

¶24

FAO(OS) 317/2015

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Srinathji Caterers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Srinathji Caterers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Atlanta (Jv) Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S Prakash-Atlanta Jv

M/S Prakash Atlanta Jv Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jatinder Singh Vohra

Rajeev Saumitra Vs Neetu Singh & Ors.

Pearl Educational Society Vs Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Saurabh Singh Vs Affle Holdings Pte Ltd. & Ors.

Food Corporation of India Vs M/S Rajkumar Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Nand Kumar Taneja & Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Prakash Atlanta (Jv) Vs National Highways Authority of India

Saroj Jindal Vs Andhra Bank & Ors.

Jagdish Bhalla Vs National Small Industries Corpn Ltd. & Ors.

Panache Media Vs Chitra Singh & Ors.

Rohtash Yadav Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.