Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 21st October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Guest Houser Hospitality Private Limited (Applicant, represented by authorized representative Deepesh S. Chodankar) vs. Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited (Respondent, represented by its Managing Director).
  • Application No.: 10 of 2025, filed for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Background:
  • The dispute stems from a Leave & License Agreement dated 21‑03‑2022 concerning a 2,823.69 sq. mts property (Survey Nos. 212/5, 6, 7 & 11, Anjuna, Bardez). GTDC intended to develop a Family Entertainment Centre, restaurant and tourism‑related activities.
  • The project was approved on 29‑10‑2020 (167th Board Meeting). A tender notice was issued on 11‑06‑2021; the draft agreement (Annexure 8) contained an arbitration clause.
  • Guest Houser Pvt. Ltd., the parent entity, was the highest‑quoted bidder and received a Letter of Award on 12‑10‑2021. Guest Houser Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was then constituted as a Special Purpose Vehicle to execute the contract.
  • GTDC issued a Termination Notice on 05‑06‑2025; Guest Houser responded on 10‑06‑2025 seeking clarification.
  • The Applicant invoked Section 9 of the Act and filed Arbitration Suit No. 10/2025 in the Commercial Court‑cum‑Civil Judge, Senior Division “A” Court, Merces on 16‑06‑2025. The Commercial Court ordered on 20‑06‑2025 that GTDC not dispossess the Applicant, and later on 23‑09‑2025 granted further interim relief.
  • On 01‑08‑2025 the Applicant sent a notice invoking the arbitration mechanism and nominated a sole arbitrator; the Respondent did not reply.
  • Key Contractual Provisions:
  • Clause 13 (Agreement): Dispute resolution to be referred to the Secretary of Tourism, Government of Goa, whose decision is final and binding; includes provision for simple interest up to 8 % per annum if directed to pay.
  • Clause 14 (Annexure 8): Explicit arbitration clause stating that any dispute shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person appointed by the Secretary of Tourism; the arbitrator’s award is final and binding; the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies; venue is Goa and language English.
  • Clause 15 (Agreement): Grants exclusive jurisdiction to civil courts at Panaji, Goa.
  • Clause 2.3 (Agreement): Stipulates that schedules and annexures form an integral part of the agreement and prevail over other documents unless expressly excluded.
  • Contentions:
  • Applicant (Mr. Pereira): Argues that Clause 13 together with Annexure 8’s Clause 14 creates a valid arbitration agreement satisfying Section 7 of the Act; cites Supreme Court precedents (Interplay between Arbitration Agreements… 2024; Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank 2020).
  • Respondent (Mr. Nadkarni): Claims no arbitration agreement exists because Clause 13 lacks arbitration terminology and Clause 14 is only a draft; asserts Clause 15 overrides Clause 14; relies on several Supreme Court judgments (Reliance Communications v. MSRDC 2018; South Delhi Municipal Corp v. SMS 2026; NBCC v. Zillion 2024; etc.).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held prima facie that the parties intended arbitration and that an arbitration agreement exists, based on a holistic reading of the Agreement and Annexure 8.
  • Appointment: Mr. Ajit Anekar was appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Agreement.
  • Directions:

1. The Applicant’s advocates must email the arbitrator a copy of this order at ajitanekar@gmail.com.

2. The arbitrator must submit a statutory Statement of Disclosure (Section 11(8) & 12(1)) within one week, to be filed by the Applicant’s counsel.

3. Parties must appear before the arbitrator on dates he specifies, providing functional email, mobile and landline numbers for service of correspondence.

4. Arbitrator’s fees to follow Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018; costs to be borne equally, with the arbitrator empowered to call for deposits under Section 38.

5. Fees are subject to the final award.

6. Seat/venue remains as stipulated in the Agreement (Goa), even if proceedings are conducted online.

  • The Court emphasized that all merits, including the existence of the arbitration agreement, remain open before the Arbitral Tribunal.
  • The Court noted that the Commercial Court’s interim order dated 23‑09‑2025 remains operative; the Applicant may seek its extension before the Commercial Court.
  • The Court entertained the Applicant’s request to convert the Section 9 proceedings into a Section 17 application once the tribunal is constituted, directing the arbitrator to decide the Section 17 application within 45 days of filing.
  • No order as to costs; the order will be digitally signed and disseminated by fax or email.

Topics: Arbitration Appointment, Hospitality Contract Dispute