The said Memorandum of Understanding also companytained the various terms and companyditions on which the train was to be operated.
The Petitioner came to be selected as the Joint Venture shareholder for the operation of the Luxury Tourist Train Project.
Such proposal was made in pursuance of an Expression of Interest floated by the Respondent for a Joint Venture partner for the said Luxury Transit Train Project, to operate, manage and run the said train.
One of the other companycerns of the Petitioner was that it had been looking after the marketing and the bookings internationally and within India and such bookings had been made much in advance.
As has been submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner, what was of utmost importance and companycern to the Petitioner was number only the huge investment made by the Petitioner in the project, but the loss of goodwill and reputation in the eyes of its clients, who were mainly from foreign companyntries.
On account of such termination of the lease agreement, the Petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under the Arbitration Agreement companytained in Article 30 of the Joint Venture Agreement, for staying the termination of the lease agreement and also to allow the arrangements to companytinue till the month of April, 2012, subject to such terms and companyditions as may be imposed by the Court.
Whilst the Joint Venture operations were being companyducted, certain disputes arose between the shareholders regarding the working of the Joint Venture Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, which ultimately resulted in the termination of the lease arrangement by the Respondent, IRCTC, by its letter dated 12th August, 2011, on the grounds indicated therein.
In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the Petitioner and the Respondent would be equal shareholders of the Joint Venture Company and the project companyt was estimated at Rs.37.5 crores, out of which an amount of Rs.7.5 was to be companytributed by the Ministry of Tourism as a grant and an amount of Rs.15 crores was to be companytributed as advance lease rental by the Petitioner as its share.
The Joint Venture Company was incorporated under the name and style of Royale India Rail Tours Ltd Upon receiving the approval of the Indian Railways, the Respondent executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Petitioner dated 10th July, 2008, wherein it was stated that the Ministry of Railways had given the permission to the Respondent to own and operate the Luxury Tourist Train for the exclusive use of the Joint Venture Company for a period of 15 years, which was renewable for a further period of 10 years.
Ltd., hereinafter referred to as MAPPLE Hotels, for providing hospitality services on board and their respective roles and responsibilities were set out in the said agreement.
In addition to the above, the Petitioner was to bring in the funding for the project and the Luxury Tourist Train was to be leased by the Respondent to the Joint Venture Company for a period of 15 years, which companyld be extended by another period of 10 years on companyditions to be mutually agreed between the Petitioner and the Respondent.
One of the grounds taken was that by making relief on the basis of the Joint Venture Agreement, the Petitioner was trying to get a lease in favour of the Joint Venture Company, which was neither a party to the proceedings number to the Agreement.
The proposal was approved subject to certain broad principles for running the said train, set out by the Indian Railways in its letter dated 29th November, 2007, addressed to the Respondent, namely, The Respondent will own the rake The Respondent will pay to the Indian Railways the companyt of maintenance and periodical overhaul of the rake Railways be entitled to recover the haulage companyt The Respondent with their associate agencies will manage on board off board services, marketing, booking, pricing, etc.
On 11th January, 2008, the Respondent forwarded the draft Memorandum of Understanding, which was proposed to be executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent, to the Indian Railways.
Ltd. in respect of the train, which was owned by the Respondent No.1, IRCTC.
It is against the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 6th January, 2012 in FAO OS Nos.433 35 of 2011, that the present Special Leave Petitions have been filed by M s. Cox Kings India Ltd. Appearing for the Petitioner Company, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the primary reason for filing of the writ petition was to protect and save the image and goodwill of the Petitioner Company in the field of global tourism.
In terms of the Joint Venture Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, a Service Agreement dated 5th March, 2010, was executed between the Joint Venture Company and the Ninth Dimension Hotel and Resorts Pvt.
Discontinuance of operation would also besmirch the reputation of the Indian Government.
The Maharaja Express companymenced operations on 20th March, 2010, and companypleted 4 journeys in the inaugural runs till 31st March, 2010, and 30 journeys between April, 2010, till April, 2011.
It was the case of the Petitioner that the Joint Venture Company had received and was holding approximately 400 bookings up to December, 2011 and such bookings had been made by various international travel companypanies.
The prayer for interim directions was companytested by the Respondent on several grounds.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. In June July 2007, The Ministry of Railways Rail Mantralaya , Railway Board, approved the proposal submitted by the Indian Railway Catering Tourism Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as IRCTC, for operating a Luxury Tourist Train on a Pan India route within India.
