1. M/S DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATIONS Development Corporation Ltd. [DTTDC] 18A, DDA SCO Complex, Defence Colony, New Delhi 2. Shri C.M. Bassi, Sole Arbitrator, BD/3B, LIG Flats, Shalimar Bagh West, New Delhi110088 ....Respondent Date of Institution : 23.01.2017 Final arguments concluded on : 21.09.2024 Date of Judgment : 26.09.2024 JUDGMENT (1) The present petition filed by the nonclaimant assails the award dated 07.03.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") ARBTN NO. 114/2017 Page no. 1 of 21 Dated 26.09.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.09.26 17:02:32 +0530 passed by Sh. C.M. Bassi, The Sole Arbitrator, in the Arbitration case No. (CT) 7862/93/DTTC/2004/Dt. 19.11.2009, titled as M/S Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. [DTTDC] V/s M/s Indraprastha Travel Ltd. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred by their original status. (2) The factual matrix of the case is that claimant /respondent herein entered into an agreement dated 22.05.2006 with the nonclaimant/non claimant herein. Parties are at loggerheads on the issue of nature of the agreement because as per nonclaimant, it was composite trade agreement while as per claimant, it was license agreement. Initially there was no dispute and later on claimant terminated the agreement vide notice dated 13.10.2008 alleging the violation of agreement on part of nonclaimant. Thereafter on 19.12.2008 nonclaimant handed over the possession of premises to the claimant and on 29.06.2009 claimant appointed the sole arbitrator and presented its claim before him on 17.11.2019. The non claimant(nonclaimant herein) filed WS on 14.12.2009 and in the written statement the nonclaimant disputed the agreement dated 13.10.2008 taking plea that it was a composite trade agreement or at maximum lease agreement in disguise of license agreement. The nonclaimant had also raised the issue of noncompliance of terms and condition of the agreement on part of claimant and has also objected to the claim stating that nonclaimant terminated the agreement vide letter dated 29.06.2007 which was not accepted by the claimant. The nonclaimant had also raised the issue of noarbitration agreement between the parties and also ARBTN NO. 114/2017 Page no. 2 of 21 Dated 26.09.2024 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.09.26 17:02:38 +0530 objected to jurisdiction of Ld. Arbitrator. The claimant filed rejoinder on 03.03.2010. Thereafter, Ld. Arbitrator framed issues. Thereafter, evidence was recorded and award dated 07.03.2016, Ld. Arbitrator allowed the claim of claimant. (3) The nonclaimant had filed the present petition challenging the impugned award. The grounds on which the award has been challenged are as follows: a) The impugned Award is illegal, unjustified, bad in law and suffer from grave error of law, apparent on the face of the record before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Ld. Sole Arbitrator has failed to take into consideration, and therefore has completely ignored and disregarded, the relevant material before him. On the contrary, he has taken into account completely irrelevant material. b) The Ld. Sole Arbitrator has failed to appreciate the material on record. He has neither considered anything from the written/ oral pleadings of the parties before him,