Indian hotels company-NDMC dispute: Experts share the legal implications

NDMC wanted to auction the lease, as was the mandate under the New Delhi Municipal Act, 1994

Photo: Shutterstock
Photo: Shutterstock
Jasmeet SinghSitesh Mukherjee
Last Updated : May 07 2017 | 11:53 PM IST
The order by Supreme Court noted that while holding the auction NDMC had to “take into account the unblemished track record of the petitioner hotel as well as its capability”. Experts share the legal implications of this observation:

‘SC’s appreciation can buy Indian Hotels Company more time’

The NDMC wanted to auction the lease, as was the mandate under the New Delhi Municipal Act, 1994. IHC unsuccessfully sought an automatic extension and a right of first refusal before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. What it ultimately got was a pat on the back from the Supreme Court, which asked the NDMC to “take into account the unblemished track record of the petitioner hotel [IHC] as well as its capability” while auctioning the lease. 

It is probably unprecedented that in a direction calling for fresh unbiased auctions, the court gives a window to one party, more so, for the reason that the party concerned has contested the auctions. When the bidders are eyeing to claim stakes on the property from all corners of the globe, such a small window may (or may not) make all the difference.


‘Must have strong qualification criteria for bidders’

The Delhi High Court has held that IHC does not have the right to a renewal of the licence for the Taj Mansingh hotel. The High Court has also rejected IHC’s contention of the right of first refusal to match the bid price of the highest bidder, as it felt it would adversely affect the bid process. In this order, the Supreme Court has not interfered with the Delhi High Court judgment, which has directed auctioning the property. 

The Supreme Court has only added that given the peculiarities of this case, namely the iconic nature of the property and its brand value, the NDMC should exercise its powers in a manner that ensured that the selected bidder was capable of taking forward the goodwill of the hotel. The rationale behind this addition by the Supreme Court was to ensure the selection of a bidder who enhances the value of the property just as IHC has done over the years.


One subscription. Two world-class reads.

Already subscribed? Log in

Subscribe to read the full story →
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

Next Story