ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus EIH LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 07-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 43 7 
ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
v. 
EIH LIMITED & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos, 11886-11887 of2016) 
DECEMBER 07, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Interlocutory order - Breach of - Technical Services 
Agreement between EIH-respondent no. 1 and BHEL wherein EIH 
was to provide technical knowledge and skill required for operation 
of hotel constructed by BHEL - ElH paid BHEL, Rs. 15.21 Crores 
by way of financial accommodation - Termination of the said 
agreement, and BHEL to refund the said amount - BHEL took 
financial assistance from IFCl and TFCl - Issuance of advertisement 
A 
B 
c 
by TFCI for sale of hotel project of BHEL - ElH informing TFCI 
about the agreements between EIH and BHEL that till the said D 
amount was not refunded, ElH would have exclusive right over the 
hotel - Thereafter, suit by EIH against BHEL and others seeking 
declaration that Technical Services Agreement is valid, legal and 
subsisting as also sought permanent injunction restraining BHEL 
and others from selling - Meanwhile, grant of temporary injunction 
E 
to ElH and OB hotels by the High Court - Two years later, on 
initiation of proceeding by lFCl under SARFAESl Act, RB Hotels 
purchased the hotel unit of BHEL - Thereafter, impleadment of RB 
hotel - Interim application by ElH, seeking restraining of RB from 
having construction of hotel unit or taking steps in derogation of 
rights of EIH under Technical Services Agreement - Single Judge 
dismissed the application, however. Division Bench issued certain 
directions - Thereafter, suit as also interim applications filed by 
ElH and OB Hotels praying for a declaration that Deed of Transfer 
entered into between the financial institutions and RB Hotels, and 
F 
the certificate of sale of immovable property as illegal and, null G 
and void; as also for perpetual injunc_tion - Dismissal of interim 
application by the High Courts, however, suit by ElH and OB Hotels 
pending - On appeal, held: It is not open either a party to the /is or 
to any third party to determine at their own that an order passed by 
a Court is valid or void - Party to the lis or the third party who 
437 
H 
438 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
considers an order passed by a court as voidable or non est, ll(USI 
approach the court of competent jurisdiction for setting aside the 
said order - Injunction ordained that while dealing with the hotel 
unit the rights of the applicant be disclosed - However, the financial 
institutions sold the hotel contrary to the order passed by the High 
Court witholll disclosing the rights of the applicant as provided by 
the Agreement - Financial institutions who had executed the deed 
of transfer in favour of R Hotels and were parties to suit, were 
bound by the said interim injunction which was only to the effect 
that the liability of BHEL to repay the amount of Rs. 15.21 Crores 
up to particular date was to be communicated and recognised to 
C any subsequent purchaser - Object was that anyone purchasing 
the hotel unit should be aware of the liability and said liability should 
also be adverted and taken care of - There is no error in the 
directions issued by Division Bench of the High Court - l/lferim 
order passed by the High Court, directing for deposit of Rs. 15. 12 
0 
Crores has done substantial justice between parties, which need no 
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u!Art. 136 -
Furthermore, the Hotel has already commenced its operation and 
contracts have been made with third parties for the operation of 
the hotel and bookings are also made - Taking into consideration 
the overall circumstances as also that the last suit by EIH and OB 
E hotels, are yet to he adjudicated, orders passed by the Single Judge 
and Division Bench, refusing to grant interim injunction, cannot be 
faulted - Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908. 
Dis1>osing of C.A. No. 11886-11887 and dismissing C.A. 
F No. 11888-11889, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 One of the conditions of last agreement dated 
41h February, 2002 was to make payment of an amount of Rs. 15.21 
Crores by erstwhile owner before transferring the 1·ight in the 
hotel unit including right to run the hotel in favour of any entity. 
G The Order passed by Division Bench dated 26'h July, 2011 does 
complete justice between parties, and Division Bench bas 
exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in granting the relief which 
need 110 interfer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.