THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-7
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
September 05,2016
The Indian Hotels Company Ltd
Appellant
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STERLING COMPUTER LTD. VS. M AND N PUBLICATIONS [REFERRED TO]BALLABHADAS MATHURDAS LAKHANI V. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,MALKAPUR AND [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLA AHMED VS. ANIMEFIDRA KISSAN MITTAR [REFERRED TO]
H S RIKHY MANOHAR LAL MR P GOYLE VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
BACHHITTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KHARDAH COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAYMON AND CO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD IN ALL AAPEALS VS. BANGALORE WOOLLEN COTTON AND SILK MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ADDANKI NARAYANAPPA VS. BHASKARA KRISHNAPPA DEAD AND THEREAFTER HIS HEIRS [REFERRED TO]
MODI CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GODHRA ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. M N SOT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ASHOK KUMAR VS. SHIV CHARAN SHARMA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D RAMASWAMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
H C SHARMA AZHAR ALI KHAN VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION QF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL SIDDHARTHBHAI KARTIKEYS V SARABHAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD GUJARAT:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
HAJI T M HASSAN RAWTHER VS. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
PURAN SINGH SAHNI VS. SUNDARI BHAGWANDAS KRIPALANI [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA VS. REGIONAL MANAGER U P FINANCIAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
STERLING COMPUTERS LIMITED UNITED DATABASE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED UNITED INDIA PERIODICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. M AND N PUBLICATIONS LIMITED:MAN PUBLICATIONS LIMITED:M AND N PUBLICATIONS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF PACHALYAPPAS TRUST VS. OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NEW HORIZONS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR SIPCOT MADRAS VS. CONTROMIX PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
U P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED VS. INDURE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
B L WADEHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. HUDA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M BHASKARAN PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CIBATUL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION SECUNDERABAD VS. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
V JAGANNADHA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS A P VS. M R APPARAO [REFERRED TO]
LAXMINARAYAN R BHATTAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA VS. RASANANDA DAS [REFERRED TO]
PURE HELIUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN VS. RAJIV ANAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. AMBAY CEMENT [REFERRED TO]
SHREEDHAR GOVIND KAMERKAR VS. YESAHWANT GOVIND KAMERKAR [REFERRED TO]
AGGARWAL AND MODI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR CHAND GULATI VS. UPPAL AGENCIES PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
N D M C VS. TANVI TRADING AND CREDIT PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. MEHTA BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SETHI AUTO SERVICE STATION VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
ALOKA BOSE VS. PARMATMA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. K MOHANDAS [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PARMESHWARAN SUBRAMANI [REFERRED TO]
SHAHABUDDIN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ARULMOZHI INIARASU [REFERRED TO]
SURESH DHANUKA VS. SUNITA MOHAPATRA [REFERRED TO]
MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUERIA FERNANDES VS. ERASMO JACK DE SEQUERIA DEAD THROUGH L RS [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDRA KHANDELWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIDHI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BALJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
BIO CHEM PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES VS. ASTRON PHARMACEUTICLES [REFERRED TO]
BIHARI LAL JALAN VS. D D A [REFERRED TO]
ASIA FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR YADAV VS. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL AMUSEMENT PARK P LTD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HOTEL EXCELSIOR LTD [REFERRED TO]
GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION VS. B. YASHODABAI [REFERRED TO]
TAJDAR BABAR AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. -
(1.)This is a suit filed by the Indian Hotels Company Ltd., plaintiff with the following prayers: -
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by itself, its servants, agents, subordinates and successors from in any manner interfering with the possession, right to operate, run and maintain the hotel premises at 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi of the Plaintiff, as per the Collaboration Agreement dated 18th December, 1976 read with the Deed of Licence dated 18th December, 1976 and Supplemental Agreement dated 25th September 1979;
(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, officers, agents, subordinates and/or its successors from giving effect to the decision communicated through the letter dated 5.11.2012 having No.D/389/PA/D.E. - l/2012 in respect of hotel premises at 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, and/or from giving effect to any known or unknown decision to conduct an auction for running /operating/ maintaining, the hotel premises at 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi;
(c) Pass any orders as the court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case.
(2.)The case, as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is, that the areas in what is popularly known as Lutyens, Delhi are governed by the special local authority which was formerly known as New Delhi Municipal Committee constituted under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, these areas including various lands owned by the Government of India. One of the plot, which is the subject -matter of the suit is plot known as Plot No.1, Mansingh Road, New Delhi admeasuring 3.78 acres (1,61,706 sq. feet). It is averred that vide allotment letter dated July 13, 1976 (Exh.P -1) issued by the Government of India, L&DO (Land and Development Office) addressed to the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the said plot was allotted for setting up of a Hotel. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was given to understand, no formal agreement or lease has been executed by Government of India in favour of the defendant. However, the defendant holds this land on the basis of the aforesaid allotment as a perpetual lessee.
(3.)In 1978, a conference of Pacific Asia Travel Association ("PATA") was proposed to be held. It is in order to facilitate the stay of the delegates and visitors of the PATA conference, the defendant desired to set up a five star hotel in New Delhi. However, since the defendant did not have the expertise of setting up or running a five star hotel, it was agreed that collaboration should be entered into with some expert of repute in the field. It is averred in the plaint, that the plaintiff had also applied for allotment of land for setting up a five star hotel in New Delhi and the Govt. of India had identified the said plot for that purpose. On March 3, 1976, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant and offered to equip a hotel of about 300 rooms of acceptable international standards on the said plot. It is also averred that on March 31, 1976, a further letter (Annexure to Exh.P -40) was addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant proposing to construct a hotel on the subject plot. It was suggested that, at that stage the cost of the hotel building, excluding the cost of the land be borne by defendant, which will be around Rs.425 lakhs. The plaintiff would bear the costs of all other items such as equipment of kitchen, furniture and furnishing in detail, landscaping, operating, supplies etc and thereafter, there would be a revenue sharing arrangement.
;
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by itself, its servants, agents, subordinates and successors from in any manner interfering with the possession, right to operate, run and maintain the hotel premises at 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi of the Plaintiff, as per the Collaboration Agreement dated 18th December, 1976 read with the Deed of Licence dated 18th December, 1976 and Supplemental Agreement dated 25th September 1979;
(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, officers, agents, subordinates and/or its successors from giving effect to the decision communicated through the letter dated 5.11.2012 having No.D/389/PA/D.E. - l/2012 in respect of hotel premises at 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, and/or from giving effect to any known or unknown decision to conduct an auction for running /operating/ maintaining, the hotel premises at 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi;
(c) Pass any orders as the court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case.
(2.)The case, as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is, that the areas in what is popularly known as Lutyens, Delhi are governed by the special local authority which was formerly known as New Delhi Municipal Committee constituted under the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, these areas including various lands owned by the Government of India. One of the plot, which is the subject -matter of the suit is plot known as Plot No.1, Mansingh Road, New Delhi admeasuring 3.78 acres (1,61,706 sq. feet). It is averred that vide allotment letter dated July 13, 1976 (Exh.P -1) issued by the Government of India, L&DO (Land and Development Office) addressed to the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the said plot was allotted for setting up of a Hotel. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was given to understand, no formal agreement or lease has been executed by Government of India in favour of the defendant. However, the defendant holds this land on the basis of the aforesaid allotment as a perpetual lessee.
(3.)In 1978, a conference of Pacific Asia Travel Association ("PATA") was proposed to be held. It is in order to facilitate the stay of the delegates and visitors of the PATA conference, the defendant desired to set up a five star hotel in New Delhi. However, since the defendant did not have the expertise of setting up or running a five star hotel, it was agreed that collaboration should be entered into with some expert of repute in the field. It is averred in the plaint, that the plaintiff had also applied for allotment of land for setting up a five star hotel in New Delhi and the Govt. of India had identified the said plot for that purpose. On March 3, 1976, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant and offered to equip a hotel of about 300 rooms of acceptable international standards on the said plot. It is also averred that on March 31, 1976, a further letter (Annexure to Exh.P -40) was addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant proposing to construct a hotel on the subject plot. It was suggested that, at that stage the cost of the hotel building, excluding the cost of the land be borne by defendant, which will be around Rs.425 lakhs. The plaintiff would bear the costs of all other items such as equipment of kitchen, furniture and furnishing in detail, landscaping, operating, supplies etc and thereafter, there would be a revenue sharing arrangement.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.