Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH GUPTA, LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02 NORTH-WEST/ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter :-
OMP (I) (COMM.) 649/2026
DLNW010119862026
1. BIKANERVALA PVT LTD
Through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Parvinder Kumar
Having registered office at
A-28, Lawrence Road,
Industrial Area, Delhi-110035.
………… Petitioner no. 1.
2. M/s Tough 2 Enough Fitness and Spa Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised Representative
Mr. Wasim Saifi
Having registered office at
H. No. 12, Park Drive, Malibu
Town, Sector-47, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
………… Petitioner no. 2.
VS.
M/S ADVANCE INDIA PROJECTS LTD.
Through its Director / AR / Principal Officer
Having registered office at
AIPL Business Club
5th Floor, Golf Course Extension Road,
Sector-62, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 …….…. Respondent
12.10.2026
Order on the Petition u/s 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed
on behalf of Petitioners.
1. This is a petition seeking interim measures u/s 9 of the Arbitration &
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 1 of 19
-- 1 of 19 --
Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The relevant facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that
the Petitioner No. 1 BIKANERVALA PRIVATE LIMITED, is a company
incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, having its
registered office at A-28, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi-110035.
The Petitioner No. 1 is engaged, inter alia, in the business of
manufacturing, selling and marketing of food products and in operating
and managing restaurant(s)/food outlet(s) including through franchise(s)
under the trade names "BIKANERVALA" and "ΒΙΚΑΝΟ".
3. That in terms of order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
NCLT Delhi in CP (CAA) No. 34/230/232/ND/2022 the domestic
restaurant business of M/s. Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd. has been
transferred to M/s. Bikanervala Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the petitioner no. 1 herein. As
per scheme of arrangement and order passed by Hon'ble NCLT, Delhi, all
contracts of said Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd., which were subsisting or
having effect immediately before the 'effective date' stand transferred to
and vested in "Bikanervala Pvt. Ltd."
4. That the Petitioner No. 2 M/s. Tough 2 Enough Fitness and Spa
Private Limited, is also a Private Limited company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at H.
No. 12, Park Drive Malibu Town, Sector-47, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
The petitioner no. 2 is engaged in wellness, and hospitality related
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 2 of 19
-- 2 of 19 --
services/business.
5. That the Petitioner No.2 is the authorized franchisee operating the
BIKANERVALA outlet from the subject premises under the Franchise
arrangement executed between the Parties.
6. That the respondent M/s. Advance India Projects Limited is a Public
Limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,
2013, having its registered office at AIPL Business Club, Fifth Floor, Golf
Course Extension Road, Sector 62, Gurgaon, Haryana 122101. The
respondent no.2 is engaged in real estate business.
7. That a Lease Agreement dated 09.01.2018 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Lease Agreement/LA") was originally executed between Bikanervala
Foods Private Limited, as the LESSEE, and the Respondent, Advance
India Projects Limited, as the LESSOR, in respect of the commercial
premises situated at The Celebration Bazaar, Khanna, Punjab, comprising
Shop Nos. GF-44 & GF-45 part of departmental store and extension of
departmental store at the Ground Floor and Shop Nos. AG-28A & 30A at
the Lower Ground Floor, admeasuring approximately 10,768 sq. ft. super
area and approximately 7,000 sq. ft. covered area (hereinafter referred to as
the "Demised Premises"). Under the Lease Agreement, the Respondent
granted a lease for a period of twenty (20) years commencing from the
Rent Commencement Date, with a three-year lock-in period.
8. That as stated above the petitioner no. 1 stepped into the shoes of
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 3 of 19
-- 3 of 19 --
Bikanervala Foods Private Limited post the aforesaid approval of scheme
of arrangement. Moreover, the Respondent's own contemporaneous
conduct further evidences its recognition of the Petitioner No.1 in relation
to the Demised Premises. In October 2023, pursuant to the demerger of the
domestic restaurant business, the Petitioner No. 1 informed the
Respondent, vide e-mail communications dated 14.10.2023 and
18.10.2023, regarding the change in the corporate structure and the
effectiveness of the new entity, Bikanervala Private Limited, with effect
from 01.09.2023, and furnished the new GST and PAN particulars, while
specifically requesting the Respondent to issue the rental invoices in the
name of Bikanervala Private Limited with effect from September 2023.
The Respondent thereafter raised rental invoices in the name of
Bikanervala Private Limited in respect of the Demised Premises and
continued to receive rental payments from the Petitioner No. 1.
9. That the Petitioner No.2 invested substantial amount of more than two
crore towards setting up, fitting out, equipping and operating the
BIKANERVALA outlet at the Demised Premises, besides incurring
continuing expenditure towards manpower, inventory, licences,
maintenance and day-to-day operations. The said investment and
continuing business operations have been undertaken on the basis of the
subsisting contractual arrangement of twenty (20) years governing the
Demised Premises and the franchise relationship between the Petitioners.
Petitioner No.2 is impleaded as the franchisee/operating entity whose
possession, business, stock, equipment, investment and contractual
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 4 of 19
-- 4 of 19 --
interests are directly affected by the Respondent's acts. The continued
availability of electricity and peaceful possession of the Demised Premises
is indispensable for the functioning of the outlet.
10. That the present petition is principally founded upon the Lease
Agreement dated 09.01.2018 and the arbitration agreement contained
therein. The Lease Agreement contains express covenants protecting the
Petitioners' rights: (a) Essential Utilities: The Respondent expressly
assured and warranted that the Demised Premises would have adequate
arrangements for power and electricity, 100% power back-up, water and
other specified utilities and, significantly, guaranteed the continued
availability of the Essential Utilities to the Lessee throughout the term of
the Agreement. (b) Quiet and Peaceful Enjoyment: Clause 12 records that,
upon payment of rent and observance of the terms of the LA, the LESSEE
shall peacefully possess and enjoy the Demised Premises without
disturbance or hindrance from the LESSORS or any person(s). The
indemnity covenant further records the Respondent's obligation to ensure
that the LESSEE shall peacefully hold, possess and enjoy the Demised
Premises during the full term of the Lease without interruption,
disturbance or demands by the LESSORS or persons acting on their behalf.
(c) Operation via Franchisee: Clause 15 of the Lease Agreement expressly
reserves to the LESSEE the right to manage and operate the Demised
Premises either on its own or through its subsidiary company, sister
concern or third party by granting Franchisee Rights, and expressly
provides that the same shall not be subjected to any objection or
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 5 of 19
-- 5 of 19 --
interference by the LESSOR, subject to the permitted use and brand name
stipulated under the Lease Agreement. The Lease Agreement further
permits sub-letting for the specific purpose of operating the
BIKANERVALA Sweet Shop cum Restaurant. The operation of the
BIKANERVALA outlet by Petitioner No.2 pursuant to the Franchise
Agreement is therefore expressly contemplated and protected by the Lease
Agreement itself.
11. That the Lease Agreement contains a specific contractual
mechanism governing termination by the LESSOR. Clause 11 thereof is
expressly titled "TERMINATION OF LEASE OF THE DEMISED
PREMISES BY THE LESSORS.
12. That the Lease Agreement does not contain any express provision
conferring upon the Respondent an unrestricted or without-cause right to
terminate the Lease and that too merely on the ground that, according to
the Respondent, the entire Demised Premises are not being commercially
utilised. In particular, the Lease Agreement does not expressly stipulate
that simultaneous commercial operation of both the Ground Floor and
Lower Ground Floor is a condition precedent for continuation of the Lease
or that alleged under-utilisation of any portion of the Demised Premises,
by itself, confers an independent right of termination upon the LESSOR.
13. That the Petitioners have at all material times continued to make
payments towards the rent/revenue share and other amounts payable under
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 6 of 19
-- 6 of 19 --
the Lease Agreement. It is further material that, just two-three days prior to
the date of filing of the present petition, the Respondent has raised rental
invoices to the Petitioner for the months of August 2026 and September
2026.
14. That despite the Petitioners' compliance with the contractual
arrangement, the Respondent issued a Defect Cure Notice dated
26.06.2026 alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioners had kept the Lower
Ground Floor substantially non-operational and under-utilized, and
alleging certain operational and commercial deficiencies and that the
continued non-operation at the Lower Ground Floor has deprived the
respondent of the anticipated commercial benefits under the Lease deed.
15. That thereafter, the Respondent issued a Notice dated 21.08.2026 for
Termination of the Lease Deed, received on 27.08.2026, addressed to
Bikanervala Foods Private Limited, purporting to terminate the Lease
Agreement and directing vacation of the entire Demised Premises within
thirty (30) days from receipt thereof.
16. That the purported termination is founded solely upon alleged non-
utilisation/under-utilisation of the Lower Ground Floor and alleged
operational/commercial deficiencies. Significantly, the Respondent has not
alleged in its Defect Cure Notice or Termination Notice that the rent
remained unpaid for three consecutive months, nor has the Respondent
invoked Clause 11 on the ground of three consecutive months non-
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 7 of 19
-- 7 of 19 --
payment of rent.
17. That, thereafter, while the Petitioners continued in possession of the
Demised Premises and while the dispute regarding the validity of the
purported termination remained unresolved, the Respondent, in furtherance
of its extraneous and evil designs, caused the electricity supply to the
Demised Premises to be disconnected on 27.09.2026 at approximately
11:00 A.M., without any prior written notice or order of any competent
Court. The disconnection completely disrupted and brought to a standstill
the operations of the BIKANERVALA outlet being operated by Petitioner
No. 2.
18. That immediately upon the electricity being disconnected, Petitioner
No.2 sent an e-mail dated 27.09.2026 to the management of the
Respondent requesting immediate restoration of the electricity and
recording that the sudden disconnection had caused heavy losses and
completely disrupted the outlet operations. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1,
through its authorised representative, sent a further e-mail dated
28.09.2026 to the Respondent and its representatives demanding
immediate restoration of electricity and calling upon the Respondent to
cease interference with the Petitioners peaceful possession and business
operations.
19. That the electricity disconnection has caused immediate and
continuing damage to the Petitioners' business. The Demised Premises
contain highly perishable food items, including frozen goods, raw
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 8 of 19
-- 8 of 19 --
materials and other the Petitioners have inventory requiring refrigeration,
and contemporaneously informed the Respondent that stock of substantive
value of INR. 10,00,000/- was at risk of spoilage and deterioration on
account of the electricity disconnection.
20. That Petitioner No.2, through its authorised representative,
constrained to approach the local police authorities on 29.09.2026 in
relation to the disconnection of electricity and the apprehended
interference with the outlet and goods lying therein.
21. That a dispute has accordingly arisen between the parties in relation
to the subsistence, validity and enforceability of the Agreement, the
legality of the Respondent's purported termination, the Petitioners' right to
peaceful possession and enjoyment, and the Respondent's contractual
obligation to maintain Essential Utilities. The said dispute squarely arises
out of and in connection with the Agreement and is referable to arbitration
under Clause 24 of the LA.
22. That Clause 24 of the Agreement provides for amicable resolution in
the first instance and, upon failure, reference of unresolved disputes to
arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The clause expressly provides that the seat of arbitration shall be at New
Delhi.
23. That the Petitioners manifestly intend to invoke the arbitration
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 9 of 19
-- 9 of 19 --
agreement contained in Clause 24 of the Lease Agreement and to have the
disputes arising therefrom adjudicated by the competent arbitral tribunal.
The present petition is being filed as an urgent interim measure in view of
the continuing electricity disconnection and the immediate threat to
peaceful possession. The Petitioners undertake to commence arbitral
proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
24. The above paragraphs reflects the averments of the petitioners as
mentioned in the petition under consideration. The petitioners have prayed
for the following reliefs as per the prayer clause of the petition:-
a. To pass an ad-interim and/or interim order pending the
commencement and during the arbitration proceedings, directing the
Respondent, its directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees and
all persons acting on its behalf to forthwith restore and maintain the
electricity/power supply to the Demised Premises comprising Shop Nos.
GF-44 & GF-45 and LGF-AG-28A & 30A, The Celebration Bazaar,
Khanna, Ludhiana, Punjab;
b. To pass an ad-interim and/or interim injunction pending the
commencement and during the arbitration proceedings, restraining the
Respondent, its directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees,
contractors, facility managers and all persons acting on its behalf from
interfering with the Petitioners' peaceful possession, occupation, access,
use and enjoyment of the Demised Premises, including by locking, sealing,
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 10 of 19
-- 10 of 19 --
obstructing ingress or egress, dispossessing the Petitioners, removing or
interfering with their goods, stock, equipment, fixtures or installations,
disconnecting any essential utility or otherwise taking any coercive
measure for obtaining possession, except in accordance with the express
terms of the Lease Agreement and due process of law, pending
adjudication of the disputes by the arbitral tribunal;
c. To pass an ad-interim and/or interim order pending the
commencement and during the arbitration proceedings, restraining the
Respondent from creating any third-party right, interest, tenancy, licence or
possession in respect of the Demised Premises in derogation of or
inconsistent with the subsisting contractual rights of Petitioner No.1 under
the Lease Agreement, pending adjudication of the disputes by the arbitral
tribunal.
25. The petition is duly supported by the Statement of truth. The petition
is signed on each page by the petitioners. The copy of the relevant
documents relied upon by the petitioners is also filed with the petition.
26. It is relevant to note here that on 10.10.2026 (Saturday), the Ld.
Counsel for petitioners addressed arguments and prayed for passing ex-
parte ad-interim order as per the prayer clause of the petition. The matter
was then put up for passing appropriate orders for today i.e. 12.10.2026.
The notice of the petition was not issued to the respondent at that time.
However, the Ld. Counsel for respondent, namely, Sh. Siddharth Joshi,
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 11 of 19
-- 11 of 19 --
Advocate appeared today before the court of his own in this matter and
submitted that through online portal, the respondent came to know about
pendency of this petition. Ld. Counsel for respondent prayed for providing
the copy of petition. Same was supplied to him. Thereafter, pass over was
sought by him. Subsequently, after pass over, Ld. Counsels for both the
parties addressed arguments. The documents are not in dispute. The Ld.
Counsel for respondent argued that this court is not having territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition. Ld. Counsel for respondent
highlighted Clause 24 of the Lease Agreement dated 09.01.2018. For the
sake of convenience, the said Clause 24 is reproduced below:-
a. If a dispute arises in relation to, touching, arising out of, or in
connection
with this Lease Agreement, shall be resolved amicably at the first instance
whereby referring the same to Directors of both the parties. The final
outcome of the same whether resolved or unresolved, as the case may be,
shall be recorded in writing. Unresolved disputes, controversies, contests,
disputes, if any, shall be submitted to arbitration within 30 days from the
date of failure to resolve the dispute or difference. The Arbitration shall be
conducted in accordance with the Provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 along with the rules framed there under and any
amendments thereto by a sole arbitrator, duly appointed by the both
parties mutually. The arbitration shall be conducted in English. The
decision/ award of the arbitrator shall be final/ conclusive and binding on
the parties. The seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi. The Arbitrator's
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 12 of 19
-- 12 of 19 --
fee shall be borne by all the parties equally.
b. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 24 (a) mentioned herein
above, this Lease Agreement shall not preclude either party from seeking,
temporary, provisional, or injunctive relief from courts having jurisdiction
over this Lease Agreement.
This Lease Agreement shall be governed by the laws of India and Courts at
Khanna shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising out of this
Lease Agreement.
27. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that as per the said Clause, the
Courts at Khanna, Punjab are having exclusive jurisdiction over this
matter. A query was also put to Ld. Counsel for respondent by the court as
to which court is competent according to the respondent, to appoint the
arbitrator, and, the Ld. Counsel replied that the courts at Khanna, Punjab
are competent to appoint the arbitrator. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for
petitioners argued that since the seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi as
per Clause 24, therefore, the courts at New Delhi only shall be having the
exclusive jurisdiction in all the matters arising out of the Lease Agreement.
Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that seat shall prevail over the
exclusive jurisdiction Clause meaning thereby that New Delhi Courts shall
prevail over Khanna Courts. There is no dispute regarding the contents of
the said arbitration clause. However, the dispute is only regarding its
interpretation. Clause 11 of the Lease Agreement provides for termination
of lease of the demised premises by the Lessor. The non payment of rent
for a period of three consecutive months is the ground for termination of
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 13 of 19
-- 13 of 19 --
lease. The case in hand is not regarding non payment of rent. Ld. Counsel
for respondent also argued that this court is also not having pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain this case as the term of lease is twenty years and in
case, the rent for twenty years period is calculated then it shall be more
than Rs. 2 crores, which is the pecuniary limit of this court. On the other
hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners have
estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs) only at
the time of filing this petition and accordingly, the petition is within
pecuniary jurisdiction of this court.
28. The Ld. Counsel for respondent also argued that the petitioners have
not challenged the validity of termination of lease in this petition and
therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The Ld. Counsel for petitioners
submitted that the petitioners have approached this court only for limited
purpose of seeking interim relief from the court and the remaining dispute
shall be adjudicated by the Ld. Arbitrator after commencement of the
proceedings consequent to appointment of the arbitrator.
29. During arguments, a query was also put to Ld. Counsel for the
respondent regarding the possession of the demised premises and Ld.
Counsel for respondent replied that as on date, the possession of the said
premises is with the petitioners.
30. After concluding arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent also filed
written submissions. I have considered the same also. Both the parties have
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 14 of 19
-- 14 of 19 --
also relied upon certain judgments of Hon’ble Superior Courts. The same
have also been perused. The respondent has also referred to termination
notice dated 21.08.2026 under the Lease Agreement dated 09.01.2018. The
respondent has also referred to defect cure notice dated 26.06.2026 in the
written submissions. Ld. Counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment
titled as “Devyani International Limited VS. Siddhi Vinayak Builders and
Developers, decided on 27.09.2017” passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi. The said judgment also deals with similar issue under consideration.
It is in support of the case of the petitioners. The other judgment relied
upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioners is titled as “BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs.
NHPC Limited, decided on 10.12.2019”, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Ld. Counsel for petitioners highlighted para no. 46, 47 and 48 of the
said judgment. It also supports the case of the petitioners. The other
judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioners is titled as “Yasshdeep
Builders LLP Vs. Sushil Kumar Singh & Ors, decided on 01.03.2024” by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Ld. Counsel for petitioners highlighted
para no. 12, 26, 27, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 of the said judgment. It also
supports the case of the petitioners.
31. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that the last paid rent was on
26.07.2026 in the sum of Rs. 2,94,840/- relevant entry of bank statement
was highlighted. In the petition, it is mentioned that just two-three days
prior to the date of filing of the present petition, the Respondent has raised
rental invoices to the Petitioner for the months of August 2026 and
September 2026. The petitioners are obliged to pay the same timely. The
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 15 of 19
-- 15 of 19 --
copy of Franchise Agreement dated 14.11.2017 is also on record, which is
between Bikanervala Foods Private Limited and Tough 2 Enough Fitness
and SPA Private Limited and Advance India Projects Limited. Copy of
Lease Agreement dated 09.01.2018 is also on record. Clause 3.3 of the
Lease Agreement dated 09.01.2018 deals with electricity / power load in
the demised premises. The copy of defect cure notice dated 26.06.2026 is
also on record. In para no. 4 of the said notice, it is mentioned that the
addressee i.e. Bikanervala Foods Private Limited has operated only from
the ground floor while keeping the lower ground floor substantially non
operational and underutilised.
32. The respondent has also relied upon some citations as reflected in
the written submissions. The said judgments are not squarely attracted to
the facts of this case in so far as the contentions raised on behalf of
respondent are concerned.
33. Moreover, the recent judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
titled as “M/s KLA Const. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gulshan Homz
Pvt. Ltd.” (2025: DHC: 4217), decided on 14.05.2025 is also relevant,
which also supports the case of the petitioners in terms of territorial
jurisdiction. Para no. 20 and 21 of the said judgment are relevant, which
are reproduced as under:-
“20. Moreover, this Court, in Devyani International Ltd. v. Siddhivinayak
Builders and Developers, therein held that when Clause 11 of the Agreement
designated New Delhi as the seat of arbitration, but Clause 12 conferred
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 16 of 19
-- 16 of 19 --
exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Mumbai, primacy must be given to the
seat. The Court held that once the seat has been designated, only the Courts
at the seat would have jurisdiction to entertain applications arising out of the
arbitration Agreement. Relevant paragraphs affirming the aforesaid is
reproduced below:
“8. In view of the Clause 11.1 above, it is obvious that the seat of
arbitration is Delhi. In this context reference may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Private
Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678, the Supreme
Court held as follows:
“19. A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the moment
the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction Clause. On
the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of arbitration is
Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that jurisdiction
exclusively vests in the Mumbai courts. Under the Law of Arbitration,
unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to suits filed in courts,
a reference to “seat” is a concept by which a neutral venue can be
chosen by the parties to an arbitration Clause. The neutral venue may
not in the classical sense have jurisdiction-that is, no part of the cause of
action may have arisen at the neutral venue and neither would any of the
provisions of Section 16 to 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure be
attracted. In arbitration law however, as has been held above, the
moment “seat” is determined, the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would
vest Mumbai courts with exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating
arbitral proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties.”
9. In the light of the above legal position, it is manifest that the
Agreement records that the seat of arbitration shall be Delhi. In view of
the above legal position the courts at Delhi would have exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The reliance of
the learned counsel for the respondent on Clause 12 of the agreement is
misplaced due to the clear terminology used in Clause 11.1 of the
agreement, i.e. “seat of arbitration shall be Delhi.””
21. Similarly, in NJ Construction v. Ayursundra Health Care (P) Ltd.,
although the Agreement therein conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts
at Guwahati, the seat of arbitration was New Delhi. This Court ruled that
only the Courts at the seat New Delhi, would have jurisdiction, rejecting the
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 17 of 19
-- 17 of 19 --
claim of jurisdiction by Courts at Guwahati. Several other coordinate
Benches of this Court have consistently followed this line of reasoning,
reaffirming that the designation of a seat of arbitration carries with it
exclusive supervisory jurisdiction, overriding any contrary Clause on Court s	‟
jurisdiction.”
34. In view of totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
also, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Superior Courts relied upon by
the petitioners, it is clear that this court is having territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and decided this petition. The seat of the arbitration shall be at
New Delhi, which will prevail over the exclusive jurisdiction Clause
regarding Khanna Courts of Punjab. Moreover, the petitioners are the
dominus litus and the specified value of the petition is Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs). This court is having pecuniary jurisdiction also to
entertain and decide this petition. The validity of termination notice shall
be adjudicated by the Ld. Arbitrator as and when appointed. The
petitioners are dealing in perishable goods / food items. The petitioners
shall suffer irreparable loss or injury in case, the electricity to the demised
premises is not restored immediately by the respondent. The balance of
convenience also lies in favour of petitioners. There is no other equally
efficacious remedy available with the petitioners. The defect cure notice
dated 26.06.2026 talks about underutilization of the lower ground floor of
the demised premises. It does not talk about non payment of rent by the
petitioners for consecutive three months period. The petitioners are able to
show a prima facie case in their favour. Hence, in view of the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled for interim relief
in their favour and against the respondent under the provisions of Section 9
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 18 of 19
-- 18 of 19 --
of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
35. Accordingly, the Respondent, its directors, officers, agents,
representatives, employees and all persons acting on its behalf is / are
directed to forthwith restore and maintain the electricity/power supply to
the Demised Premises comprising Shop Nos. GF-44 & GF-45 and LGF-
AG-28A & 30A, The Celebration Bazaar, Khanna, Ludhiana, Punjab and
hereby restrained from interfering with the Petitioners' peaceful use,
occupation and enjoyment of the Demised Premises, and further hereby
restrained from creating any third-party right, interest, tenancy, licence or
possession in respect of the Demised Premises, except in accordance with
due process of law.
Needless to mention here that the parties to this petition shall do the
needful strictly in accordance with Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ordered accordingly.
The present petition u/s 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
stands disposed off accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after completing necessary
formalities.
Copy of this order be given dasti to both the sides.
Passed and announced in the (Manish Gupta)
open Court on 12.10.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts
Bikanervala Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/S Advance India Projects Ltd. Page 19 of 19
-- 19 of 19 --