Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Arvitis Bistro Private Limited vs M/S Red Bricks Developers & Anr on 13 April, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026
M/S ARVITIS BISTRO PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Ms. Akshita
Katoch, Ms. Namrata Mohapatra,
Advocates
versus
M/S RED BRICKS DEVELOPERS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Mr. Partik
Ahlawat, Mr. Rohit Dhamija and Mr.
Puneet Dewan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 13.04.2026
THIS MATTER HAS BEEN HEARD THROUGH VIDEO-
CONFERENCING
1. This Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking ex-parte ad interim relief against the Respondent No.1.
2. Facts of the case, as discernible from the Petition, are as under:
a. The present Petition arises out of a commercial dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 in relation to a restaurant jointly operated by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 under a General Agreement dated 16.12.2022. The restaurant is situated at Shop No. 18, Lodhi Colony Main O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 1 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45 Market, New Delhi. Under the said arrangement, the Petitioner undertook substantial financial and operational responsibilities, including investment of more than Rs.5 crores towards interiors, equipment, and overall development of the Restaurant in question, and was responsible for day-to-day management of the restaurant. It is stated that Respondent No.1, being the licensee of the premises, was entrusted with statutory compliances, billing, and receipt of revenues through a designated business bank account, with a fixed monthly entitlement. It is stated that the business arrangement functioned smoothly until early 2026, when disputes arose on account of Respondent No.1's attempt to unilaterally alter the commercial terms and extract additional financial gains beyond the agreed structure.
b. It is stated that the dispute escalated in February 2026 when Respondent No.1, through its partner Mr. Praveen Rajpal, began interfering with the functioning of the restaurant by forcibly entering the premises, creating disturbances during operational hours, and coercing the Petitioner into agreeing to enhanced payment terms under threat of termination of the Agreement. It is stated that a handwritten note dated 25.02.2026 was obtained from the Petitioner under alleged duress, followed by the issuance of a one-sided supplementary agreement containing arbitrary and commercially unreasonable conditions. It is stated that the Petitioner resisted such unilateral modifications and sought to renegotiate terms through lawful O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45 means; however, Respondent No.1 continued to adopt coercive tactics, including issuance of ultimatum communications threatening cessation of business operations and repossession of the premises.
c. It is stated that on 12.03.2026, Respondent No.1 unlawfully locked the first floor of the premises, which was integral to the restaurant's functioning as it housed storage facilities, perishable inventory, and customer washrooms, and additionally disrupted electricity supply, resulting in operational paralysis and financial loss to the Petitioner due to spoilage of inventory. This compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing a Petition, being OMP(I) (COMM) 99/2026, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is stated that the said petition was withdrawn on 16.03.2026 on the assurance of Respondent No.1 that no further obstruction would be caused.
d. It is stated that despite such assurance, Respondent No.1, in a complete reversal, blocked the designated business bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, thereby preventing the Petitioner from accessing sale proceeds, discharging vendor payments, or meeting statutory liabilities. It is stated that this action of Respondent No.1 crippled the financial functioning of the restaurant, as revenues continued to be deposited but remained inaccessible to the Petitioner. It is stated that repeated communications addressed both to Respondent No.1 and the O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45 bank failed to yield any resolution, and statutory dues including taxes remained unpaid, exposing the Petitioner to penalties. e. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 escalated its obstructive conduct at the premises by deploying unauthorized individuals, including stationing a person outside the ladies' washroom and sending persons who engaged in threatening, abusive, and intimidating behavior towards staff and customers, thereby creating a hostile environment and adversely affecting the goodwill and commercial viability of the restaurant. It is stated that despite attempts at amicable resolution, including meetings between the parties, Respondent No.1 failed to restore normalcy or comply with assurances given.
f. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Direct the Respondent No.1 to forthwith restore and render the business bank account bearing A/c No. 194505500179 having Corporate ID No. 591499949.USER1, maintained at ICICI Bank Limited, D-22, Defence Colony, New Delhi (Respondent No.2), fully operational;
ii. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to ensure that all payments due from the sale proceeds of the restaurant received in the business bank account bearing A/c No. 194505500179 having Corporate ID No. 591499949.USER1, maintained with the Respondent No. 2 are duly transferred to the Petitioner's bank account in accordance with the terms of the Agreement;O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45 iii. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to facilitate the discharge of all other payments for the operations of the restaurant strictly in terms of the said Agreement, including but not limited to statutory dues such as VAT which remain pending to be paid to date;
iv. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to allow the Petitioner to make necessary payments from the bank account bearing A/c No. 194505500179 having Corporate ID No. 591499949.USER1, maintained at ICICI Bank Limited, D-22, Defence Colony, New Delhi (Respondent No.2), to run the restaurant in terms of the Agreement;
v. Restrain the Respondent No.1, his agents, servants, and associates from entering the restaurant premises and disrupting or interfering with the day-to-day operations of the restaurant during the pendency of arbitration proceedings;
vi. Restrain the Respondent No.1 from alienating or creating any third-party rights in or over Shop No. 18, Lodhi Colony Main Market, New Delhi, during the pendency of arbitration;
vii. Direct that status quo be maintained as it existed prior to the disputes with respect to the Petitioner's possession and access to the Premises;
viii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there are perishable items like meat, books of accounts and several paintings, which are lying in the premises. He states that apart from these three, there are O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45 other equipments of the Petitioner which are lying inside the premises.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents very fairly submits that as far as the perishable items, books of accounts and paintings are concerned, the Respondents have no objection if these three are removed from the premises. However, he states that the same be done under the supervision of a Local Commissioner in the presence of a representative of the Respondents.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the suggestion made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is a very fair suggestion.
6. Accordingly, Mr. Juvas Rawal, Advocate (Mobile No.:8810213725) is appointed as the Local Commissioner.
7. The Local Commissioner is directed to visit the premises on 14.04.2026 at 03:00 PM and make an inventory of the items that are being taken away by the Petitioner in the presence of the Local Commissioner, i.e. the account books, perishable items and paintings, etc.. The Local Commissioner is also directed to make an inventory of the items that are left behind.
8. The Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as the fees of the Local Commissioner.
9. Since the Agreement dated 16.12.2022 contains an arbitration clause, this Court gave a suggestion to the learned Counsels for the parties that this Court can appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate on the disputes that have arisen between the parties and the present Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be treated as one under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the learned Arbitrator. Learned Counsels for the Parties, by mutual consent, have agreed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 6 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45 that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes.
10. Accordingly, Mr. Shashank Garg, Sr. Advocate (Mobile No. 9811526671) is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Parties.
11. The learned Arbitrator is requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within two days of entering reference.
12. The learned Local Commissioner is directed to give his report to the learned Arbitrator immediately on the Arbitrator entering reference.
13. The present petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be treated as one under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same be decided within two weeks from the date of entering reference.
14. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
15. It is expected the Ld. Arbitrator will decide the Section 17 application on the weight of the merits, contentions raised by both sides and on the documents being adduced by both sides without being influenced by this Order.
16. The petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J APRIL 13, 2026 Rahul O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 155/2026 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/04/2026 at 22:04:45