Delhi District Court
Himalayan Food Park Pvt Ltd vs Bright Lifecare Pvt Ltd on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTT. JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-02)
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
OMP (Comm) 26/2024
Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at M-13, LGF,
South Extension-II, New Delhi-110049
Versus
Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd.
(Through its authorized person)
Regd. Office at 713, 7th Floor, Devika Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Date of filing of the suit : 07.09.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 21.01.2026
Date of judgment : 24.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ANC Act) challenging the award passed by Ld. sole Arbitrator on 10.02.2023.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent had entered into a Letter of Intent / LoI for industrial property bearing no.15/1,2,3,4,5,6 out of Khasra anuradha shukla Digitally signed by No.312 admeasuring area of 22338 Sq. meters situated at anuradha shukla Himalyan Mega Food Park, Central Processed Centre, Date: 2026.02.24 14:49:06 +0530 Mahua Khera Ganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 1 OF 15 Uttarakhand. The parties were to execute an agreement within 30 days of signing of the LoI after which the LoI was to come to an end. As per LoI, the lessor had to give the demised premises to lessee within 30 days of signing of LoI. An amount of Rs.5 Lacs was paid by the lessee through NEFT on 06.12.2018 which was the only transaction done in the matter. The petitioner says that he came to know about the award when the execution petition was filed before Ld. ADJ, Haldwani. It is stated that in continuance of the LoI and Clause 3(8) of the LoI, the petitioner had to provide approved Master Lay Out Plan by SIDCUL/SIDA and all respective authorities within 30 days of execution of LoI failing which the petitioner had to return the token amount alongwith interest of 18% per annum. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted the Master Lay Out Plan dt. 20.17.2017 (sic). On 20.09.2019, respondent issued a legal notice to the applicant for refund of Rs.5 Lacs alongwith interest. On 05.01.2021, respondent invoked arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator. On 12.03.2021, respondent moved application under Section 11(A) of the A & C Act before Hon'ble anuradha shukla High Court of Delhi wherein Mr. Sanjay Sareen, Advocate Digitally signed by anuradha shukla Date: 2026.02.24 was appointed as Arbitrator. On 16.05.2022, claim was 14:49:16 +0530 filed by the respondent and on 23.08.2022, statement of defence was filed by the petitioner. On 10.02.2023, Ld. Arbitrator passed the impugned award.
3. The award has been challenged inter alia on following Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 2 OF 15 grounds:
(i) The award is germane of LoI which was considered by Ld. Arbitrator as a contract though the same was not executed as per law and was not contract as per Indian Contract Act.
(ii) Ld. Arbitrator did not consider that LoI did not create contractual obligations which could be enforceable by law.
(iii)Ld. Arbitrator did not consider that there was specific remedy within limitation, the LoI was to be executed within 30 days and if the petitioner could not comply with term of LoI, the respondent had other option of going for specific performance of the contract.
(iv) It is stated that the LOI would have extinct on 05.01.2019. there was thus n agreement between the parties after that.
(v)It is stated that the respondent did not take steps for sending any notice for this or to take legal course for specific performance.
(vi)It is stated that petitioner had applied for records for the approval of Government of Uttarakhand, however, the anuradha shukla government did not provide the same, hence, it was Digitally signed by anuradha shukla beyond the scope of petitioner. The laches were on the part Date: 2026.02.24 of the authority. It is stated that the approval was in the 14:49:23 +0530 hands of authority for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.
(vii)The petitioner has challenged the imposition of interest on the amount.
Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 3 OF 15
4. Reply to the petition was filed. It is stated that scope of interference by Court under Section 34 of the Act is limited. The Court cannot interfere in the award unless it has errors factual or legal. The Court cannot go in the quantity or quality of evidence considered by the Arbitrator. On merits, it is stated that the petitioner not only took the amount from the respondent and misappropriated it but also refused to return it on being asked. On account of the failure of the petitioner in returning the token amount, as agreed, the respondent was constrained to invoke arbitration clause in the LoI. The award was passed by the Ld. Arbitrator after complete trial and the parties were informed on 09.02.2023 through e- mail that the award shall be announced on 10.02.2023 at 12 pm. The parties thus were aware of the passing of the anuradha shukla award. The award is a well reasoned award. It is stated that Digitally signed by anuradha the ground that LoI did not fall within the definition of shukla Date: 2026.02.24 14:49:32 +0530 contract was not taken by the petitioner before the Ld. Arbitrator and raising of the same for the first time in the court is not permissible under law. The issue of limitation has been considered by the Ld. Arbitrator from para no.28 to 32 of the award. The petitioner's attempt to blame government authorities for its inefficiency is not valid.
5. The petitioner filed rejoinder denying all the contents of the reply.
6. Arguments on the petition were heard. Ld counsels for the Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 4 OF 15 parties also filed written arguments and judgments in support of their contentions.
7. The respondent challenged the petition on the ground of limitation. It is stated that the award was passed on 10.02.2023. The petitioner was appearing before the tribunal. It was a contested case. The date for award was given through email. It was informed to the parties through this email that the award would be passed on 10.02.2023. The petitioner has admitted in rejoinder that it had received the email. Hence, the plea that the petitioner was unaware of award till the filing of execution by the respondent is a false plea taken by petitioner.
8. Ld counsel for the petitioner has on the other hand argued that the admission of email having been received is not admission of physical copy of award having been supplied, Digitally signed by anuradha which is the mandate of law. It was argued that the proper anuradha shukla shukla procedure for sending the signed copy of award has not Date:
2026.02.24 14:49:40 +0530 been complied with.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dakshin Harayana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 657. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cited judgment relied upon the judgment in Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, 2005 (4) SCC 239 wherein Hon'ble Court had held that "The legal requirement under sub-section (5) of Section 31 is the Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 5 OF 15 delivery of a copy of the award signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator, and not any copy of the award. On a harmonious construction of Section 31(5) read with Section 34(3), the period of limitation prescribed for filing objections would commence only from the date when the signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making the application for setting aside the award. If the law prescribes that a copy of the award is to be communicated, delivered, dispatched, forwarded, tendered, or sent to the parties concerned in a particular way, and since the law sets a period of limitation for challenging the award in question by the aggrieved party, then the period of limitation can only commence from the date on which the award was received by the concerned party in the manner prescribed by law"... The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon aforesaid and other judgments held that "we are of the considered opinion that the period of limitation for filing objection would have to be reckoned from the date on which signed copy of the award was made available to the party....".
anuradha shukla 10. In Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Digitally signed by anuradha Anr. Vs. Hosmac Projects Division of Hosmac India Pvt.
shukla Date: 2026.02.24 14:49:48 +0530Ltd. 2023 SCC Online Del 8296, wherein the Hon'ble High Court found following compliances as important for computation of limitation"
(i) A signed copy of arbitral award is to be delivered to each party;
Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 6 OF 15
(ii) the delivery should be to a party who is competent to take a decision as to whether or not the award is to be challenged;
(iii) the expression party does not include an agent or a lawyer of such party;
(iv) the limitation u/s. 34 (3) of the Act commences when the party making the application has received the award.
11. Going by the principles laid down in aforesaid two judgments, there is no evidence on the file suggesting that the signed copy of the award was ever sent or supplied to the petitioner. The respondent has also not pleaded that such a copy was supplied to it. The limitation was to be deemed to have begun when the petitioner got the copy of award. In absence whereof the petition filed on the basis of plea of acquired knowledge shall be considered to have been filed with in limitation.
12. Going to merits, under section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the role of court is limited to considering only the aspects mentioned in sub section 2 of the Section. It is settled law that the court u/s. 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act cannot sit in appeal and examine the anuradha evidence led before the Arbitrator and the consideration of shukla Digitally signed by same by the Ld. Arbitrator. anuradha shukla In UHL Power Company Ltd vs State of HP (2022) 4 Date: 2026.02.24 14:49:55 +0530 SCC 116 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held :"As it is, the jurisdiction conferred on Courts u/s 34 of Arbitration Act Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 7 OF 15 is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope of an appeal u/s 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of an appellate Court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is all the more circumscribed."
In MMTC Ltd vs Vedanta Limited (2019) 4 SCC 163, it was held that "As far as Section 34 is concerned the position is well settled that the Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under section 34 (2) (b) (ii) i.e. if the award is against the public policy of India. As per the legal position clarified through decision of this Court prior to the amendment to the 1996 Act in 2015, a violation of Indian public policy, in turn, includes a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, a violation of interest of India, conflict with justice or morality and the existence of patent illegality of arbitral award.
13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ircon International Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Limited 2023 SCC Online anuradha Del. 2350 held that shukla "patent illegality warranting setting aside of award should Digitally signed by anuradha shukla be such illegality or deficiencies at the face of award and/ Date: 2026.02.24 14:50:02 +0530 or shock the conscience of the Court in order for it to qualify to be set aside by this Court.
14. Testing the facts of the case on the aforesaid Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 8 OF 15 guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts time and again, the Court has to consider if there is any violation or breach of any principles including the principle of natural justice to an extent that warrants interference from the Court.
15. The petitioner is contending that the relevant material was not considered and award is based on irrelevant considerations without specifying either the not considered relevant or the irrelevant considerations.
16. The petitioner has challenged the award on the ground of it being vitiated by limitation stating that LoI had expired on 05.01.2019 and the statement of claim was filed on 16.01.2022 i.e. after the period of 3 years.
17. As argued by Ld counsel for the respondent under the Arbitration Act, the limitation is computed not from the date of filing of claim but much prior to that. Ld. Arbitrator has given a valid reasoning regarding Section 21 which states that arbitral proceedings in respect of a anuradha shukla dispute commence on the date of sending of request/notice Digitally signed for invocation of arbitration, which in this case was done by anuradha on 05.01.2021, which shall be date relevant for shukla Date: 2026.02.24 14:50:10 +0530 computation of limitation. The respondent in this case had also filed application under Section 11(6) of A & C Act on 12.03.2021.
In any case, this matter would be squarely covered by Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 9 OF 15 the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto writ petition (c) no 3 of 2020; In re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The major part of limitation fell within the period exempted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (from March, 2020 till February 2022). The respondent shall have benefit of this period. The claim filed by respondent before the Ld. arbitrator, therefore, cannot be considered to have been filed after limitation. The award cannot be faulted on this account.
18. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the LoI did not constitute a legally enforceable contract and therefore, award based on this document will have to be termed as patently illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the public policy in as much as Ld. Arbitrator treated the same as a conclusive agreement.
19. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. & Others Vs. M/s S.Kumar's Associates AKM (JV), AIR 2021 SC 3549. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited judgment held that the anuradha shukla document relied upon by the parties was a letter of intent Digitally signed and not a contract, however, in the cited judgment itself by anuradha shukla Date: 2026.02.24 14:50:19 +0530 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the c ontents of documents are to be read carefully to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the document in fact intended the parties to bind them by any term contained therein . The Hon'ble Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 10 OF 15 Supreme Court in para no.20 of the cited judgment observed that it is no doubt possible to construe a letter of intent as a binding contract if such an intention is evident from its terms.
20. Considering the LoI in this matter, there were specific terms binding the parties for a period during which this letter was to remain in existence. The needful was to be done by the petitioner within 30 days. It provided for disputes that could arise between parties, to be raised before the Arbitrator. It was also agreed that the territorial jurisdiction in the event of dispute would be of the Delhi Courts. The parties thus were agreeing to bind each other with the terms of letter and also intending to take each other to appropriate forum decided in the letter itself, in the event of a dispute arising between them.
21. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioner never took the objection of LoI not being a contract before the Ld. Arbitrator and, therefore cannot use this ground before the Appellate Court for the first time. The law in this regard is well settled. The anuradha Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India Vs. V.K. shukla Digitally signed Sood, Engineer and Contractor, Manu/DE/3397/2025 and by anuradha shukla Date: 2026.02.24 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Susuka 14:50:26 +0530 Pvt. Ltd. Manu/SC/1157/2017 held that if a plea is available whether on facts or law, it has to be raised by the party at appropriate stage in accordance with law. If not Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 11 OF 15 raised or /and given up with consent, the party would be precluded from raising such plea at a later stage of the proceedings on the Principle of Waiver. If permitted to raise, it causes prejudice to other party.
22. It would be relevant to note that the petitioner filed a reply to the application under Order 11 (6) filed by the respondent herein before the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner stated that the LoI was executed between the parties and also that the application was not maintainable as dispute occurred in Uttarakhand. But nowhere in reply it stated that the LoI was not a contract which could bind the parties.
23. I have also seen the written statement of the petitioner filed before the Ld. Arbitrator, nowhere in this WS did the respondent state that LOI was not a contract and hence, was not binding upon the parties.
24. It has been rightly argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner claimed before the Ld. Arbitrator that it was entitled for the whole amount agreed in LoI as the delay was not on its part, which plea was anuradha rejected by Ld. Arbitrator as there was no counter claim shukla Digitally signed filed. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to blow by anuradha shukla Date: 2026.02.24 14:50:34 +0530 hot and cold as per its convenience. For the aforesaid reason also, I see no reason to interfere with the award on the ground of LoI not being a contract.
Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 12 OF 15
25. It was argued that the award was patently illegal for above reason. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ircon International Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Limited 2023 SCC Online Del. 2350 held that "patent illegality warranting setting aside of award should be such illegality or deficiencies at the face of award and/or shock the conscience of the Court in order for it for quality to be set aside by the Court".
The petitioner has no been able to prove illegality much less patent illegality of the nature mentioned by Hon'ble Court, in the award.
26. It was argued that the respondent could have filed a suit for specific performance, if the petitioner did not sign the agreement and give possession in 30 days. The respondent had a remedy, which was provided in the LoI. The petitioner cannot dictate as to what remedy should the respondent have availed. Relevantly, the petitioner itself has not filed any suit asking the respondent to complete the agreement. The petitioner, therefore, cannot just take away the money of respondent and do not do anything further.
27. It was argued that the petitioner had done the needful but anuradha shukla had no control over the government authorities. The Digitally signed by anuradha shukla documents of petitioner would show that the SIDAU wrote Date: 2026.02.24 14:50:42 +0530 to petitioner that there were short comings in its application. Therefore, it was not only the government Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 13 OF 15 authorities, who were at fault. The petitioner has nowhere shown what were the shortcomings pointed by SIDAU and whether needful was done by petitioner in 30 days. The respondent in fact waited for more than 30 days, before issuing the legal notice dated 20.09.2019.
28. It is a settled law that parties in a petition under Section 34 of the act do not plead their case as appeal. The role of the court under this provision is very limited and is to consider whether there was any conflict with the public policy or anything contrary to the Indian Contract Act. A violation of Indian public policy, as settled means a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, a violation of interest of India, conflict with justice or morality and the existence of patent illegality of arbitral award. None of these issues are seeming correct in the present matter. The Court cannot reconsider the evidence appreciated by the Ld. Arbitrator and definitely cannot go into the factual issues which were never agitated before the Ld. Arbitrator.
29. The petitioner has challenged the grant of interest @ 18% pa in the award. In Larsen Air conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC anuradha shukla Online 982, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the award Digitally signed granting interest @ 18% per annum to the respondent. In by anuradha the instant matter the interest @ 18% was agreed between shukla Date: 2026.02.24 14:50:50 +0530 the parties in LoI. There is , therefore, no reason to Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 14 OF 15 interfere with the award on this ground also.
30. For the aforesaid reasons and detailed discussion herein above the case of the petitioner is not found covered by any of the clauses provided u/s. 34 of the A & C Act. The petition is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
(Dictated and announced on
signed by
anuradha
anuradha shukla
shukla
24th February, 2026)
Date:
2026.02.24
14:51:00
+0530
(Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-02)
South Distt., Saket, New Delhi/24.02.2026 Himalayan Food Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bright Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. PAGE NO. 15 OF 15