2012 (7) TMI 1050 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of Lease Agreement
2. Interim Relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
3. Ownership and Operation of the Luxury Tourist Train
4. Appointment of Receiver and Continuation of Train Operations
5. Appeal against the Single Judge's Order
6. Special Leave Petitions and Final Judgment

Summary:

1. Termination of Lease Agreement:
The dispute arose when the Respondent, IRCTC, terminated the lease arrangement with the Petitioner for the operation of the Luxury Tourist Train, Maharaja Express, citing various grounds, including non-payment of dues.

2. Interim Relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The Petitioner initiated proceedings u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to stay the termination of the lease agreement and to allow the continuation of operations till April 2012, citing significant investments and potential loss of goodwill.

3. Ownership and Operation of the Luxury Tourist Train:
The Petitioner argued that the Joint Venture Agreement implied a partnership and that the train was partnership property. However, the Division Bench noted that the train was owned by IRCTC, and the Joint Venture Company was formed for its management and operation.

4. Appointment of Receiver and Continuation of Train Operations:
The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court appointed a Receiver to oversee the operation of the train to prevent discontinuation, considering public interest and advance bookings. The train was to be run under the Receiver's supervision from 14th September 2011 to 31st December 2011.

5. Appeal against the Single Judge's Order:
IRCTC challenged the Single Judge's order, and the Division Bench set aside the arrangement, stating that the mandatory injunction would create an agreement between the Joint Venture Company and IRCTC, which was not permissible. The Division Bench suggested that IRCTC should operate the train, honoring existing bookings, and manage revenues and expenses through a separate account.

6. Special Leave Petitions and Final Judgment:
The Petitioner filed Special Leave Petitions against the Division Bench's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, agreeing with the Division Bench's suggestions for IRCTC to operate the train and allowing the parties to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal to resolve their disputes. The Court emphasized that the observations made should not influence the arbitral proceedings and directed the parties to bear their own costs. The Contempt Petitions were also dismissed.