M/S Conocedor Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs M/S Pratham Infratech Pvt Ltd & Anr

$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026, CM APPL. 3362/2026 & CM APPL.
3363/2026
M/S CONOCEDOR HOSPITALITY PVT LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, Adv.
versus

M/S PRATHAM INFRATECH PVT LTD & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jenis Francis and Mr. Rahul
Sarkar, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
O R D E R
% 12.03.2026
Per DINESH MEHTA, J. ( Oral )
1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the order
dated 04.08.2025 of learned Single Judge which was passed under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act of 1996’ ).
2. At the time of issuance of notice, it was contended, rather asserted, by

learned counsel for the appellant that no notice of the petition under Section
9 of the Act of 1996 was served upon it. And since such fact was also
averred in Ground E of the Memo of Appeal, we were persuaded to issue
notice vide order dated 19.01.2026. Another reason for which we had issued
notice was, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that while
deciding the petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, the learned Single
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 1 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46

Judge not only appointed a Local Commissioner and directed him to prepare
a list of the goods and inventory belonging to the parties lying in the
disputed shop but had also directed that after the shop being vacated and the
possession being handed over to the petitioner (respondent herein), it would
be allowed to let out the shop in question to any other person.
3. Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, at
the outset submitted that the appellant has perjured and has given a false
affidavit to the effect that the notice was not served upon it. In a bid to
demonstrate the falsity of the appellant’s assertion, he pointed out from the
record that a copy of the petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 was
firstly served upon Mr. Subir Poddar (Director of the appellant-company) on
the e-mail ID which was given in the Leave and License Agreement.
4. Thereafter on 09.05.2025, when the Section 9 petition came up for

consideration for the first time, learned Single Judge issued notice to the
respondent (appellant herein) through all permissible modes, which was
served upon the appellant on its e-mail ID on 02.07.2025. He submitted that
the matter again came up for consideration before learned Single Judge on
25.07.2025, wherein it was observed thus :
“1. Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submits that the notice has already been sent to the
respondent by all permissible modes including by registered
post and courier. Additionally, he contends that the notice was
sent on an email which is forming part of the agreement.
2. Mr. Nagrath, then contends that the premises in question is
locked by the respondent and the petitioner is suffering immense
financial loss on account of the commercial shop being not in
operation. He, therefore, contends that the respondent is
deliberately avoiding service.
3. The Court is of the prima facie opinion that once the notice of
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 2 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46

the petition has been sent on an email, which is being
maintained by the respondent and is forming part of the
agreement, the same should be sufficient compliance of service.
However, as an abundant caution, addition effort is directed to
be made by way of service through counsel who has represented
the respondent before the Trial Court in the civil suit as well as
who has sent the notice dated 23.04.2025 to the petitioner.
4. Let the notice be made returnable on 31.07.2025.
5. Let dasti notice to the said advocate C/o Bar & Associates
Advocates and Solicitors Office D-27, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059 is also permitted.
6. Additionally, let a copy of the petition be also sent to the
concerned counsel through email with a clear stipulation that
the matter shall be taken up on 31.07.2025.”
5. He pointed out that notice was again served upon Mr. Subir Poddar
(Director of the appellant-company) on his e-mail ID on 29.07.2025 and also
upon his Advocate Mr. Shoaib Akhtar. The matter thereafter came up for
consideration before the learned Single Judge on 31.07.2025, when Ms.
Diksha Hira, Assisting Counsel of Mr. Shoaib Akhtar appeared and prayed
for time to take instructions and the matter was ordered to be posted on
04.08.2025.
6. On 04.08.2025, said Ms. Diksha Hira, Advocate appeared and pleaded
no instructions. He submitted that it is therefore, clear that the appellant had
been served on three occasions and even its counsel (who had issued the
legal notice on behalf of the appellant) had been served and therefore, the
plea which the appellant has come with is absolutely unfounded and
factually incorrect.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further invited Court’s attention towards the
e-mail dated 07.08.2025, which the Local Commissioner had served upon
the appellant and argued that the appellant’s plea in the memo of appeal so
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 3 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46

also in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal to the effect that
it was neither served with the notice nor was aware of the order dated
04.08.2025 is a blatant lie. He contended that appellant’s stance that it came
to know that the possession of the shop in question had been taken over by
the Local Commissioner only when he incidentally passed through the area
and found that someone else was in possession of the shop in question, is
equally false.
8. In relation to nature of injunction, which learned Single judge has
granted, Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
appellant was given the shop in question on the basis of leave and license
agreement and it was clearly agreed by both the parties that one key would
be kept with the respondent (owner of the shop) and since the appellant did
not pay the license fee after 2022, as a law abiding entity the respondent
approached the Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 to ensure that the
possession of the shop in question is handed over to it in a lawful manner,
rather than opening the lock (with the key which was with it) and taking
possession on its own.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that since the appellant did not
appear before the learned Single Judge to defend its cause and was not
intentionally paying the license fee, the learned Single Judge had allowed
not only the possession to be handed over to the respondent but also allowed
the shop in question to be leased out to any other person.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Upon considering the submissions and going through the record, we
are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the appellant has taken an absolutely
false plea and has filed a false affidavit averring therein that it was not
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 4 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46

served with the notice. As demonstrated by the respondent, the notices were
served upon the appellant not once but on three occasions apart from the
service of the notice on Mr. Shoaib Akhtar, the Advocate, who had issued
legal notice on appellant’s behalf.
12. If the appellant had chosen not to appear before the learned Single
Judge, it has only himself to blame for the order he has been visited with.
Though the appeal is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost on the sole
ground of the false assertion the appellant has made in the affidavit, but we
would like to make some observations on the merit of the order also, which
the learned Single Judge has passed. According to us, such order is fully
justified for the following reasons:
(a) Since, the appellant was in possession of the subject shop
pursuant to a leave and license agreement, he could have remained
in possession as long as the respondent, the owner so wished and it
was being paid the license fee.
(b) Having failed, omitted or neglected to pay the license fee
for more than two years (for two years as per the appellant), the
appellant cannot as a matter of right retain possession, that too of
an otherwise closed and locked shop.
13. At this juncture, Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, learned counsel for the
appellant, interjected and contended that the license fee is due for the period
between November 2023 and 06.03.2024. To this, Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath,
learned Senior Counsel responded and submitted that even this assertion of
the appellant is false on the face of it. He took the Court through the legal
notice dated 23.04.2025 (page 126 of the paperbook, paragraph No. 48 in
particular) and submitted that even as per the appellant itself, a sum of
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 5 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46

Rs.93,29,355 (Rs.23,84,934/- + Rs.69,44,421/-) was due.
14. According to us, since on the date of issuance of notice, a huge
amount of Rs. 94 Lakhs was outstanding, learned Single Judge was
absolutely justified in directing the Local Commissioner to handover the
shop in question to the respondents and in allowing the respondents to keep
control of the shop in question and to let it out to someone else.
15. Section 9 of the Act of 1996 provides for protection or preservation of
the subject matter of the dispute of contentious property. The protection of
the disputed property cannot be read in a restrictive sense. Section 9,
according to us takes within its fold the protection of physical form of the
property so also its commercial worth or propensity to derive income. A
commercial property which is meant for deriving rentals should continue to
get rentals. Preserving the property does not only mean that possession
should be taken and the commercial property should be placed under lock
and keys.
16. We are therefore of the considered opinion that if the learned Single
Judge has allowed the respondent to let out the shop to any other person, the
same squarely falls within the scope of securing the property. In case, the
shop in question was not allowed to be let out, the loss caused to the
respondent could never be recouped. Because, the litigation may continue
for years, in such case not only the physical condition of the shop would
deteriorate but its commercial value would also diminish.
17. After having remained closed for years, no award of the arbitrator or
for that matter, any order passed by the Court can correctly measure the
monetary loss of rentals and recover it from the appellant, whose leave and
license agreement has been terminated and who has not even paid rentals for
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 6 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46

months together. In an unlikely event of the Arbitrator directing the
possession to be handed over to the appellant-lessee, he can well be put in
possession and compensation can be recovered from the lessor.
18. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, the appeal is
dismissed with a cost of Rs.1 Lakh to be paid in four weeks. The cost of
Rs.1 Lakh is being imposed for the false assertion made in the memo of
appeal and corresponding assertion made during arguments in the Court. In
case the cost is not paid within such time, it shall become part of the award
of the arbitrator, as and when the award is passed.
19. Needless to state that we have not made any observation on merits
and otherwise of the rights of either of the parties, the arbitrator shall
therefore, be free to take his independent view of the matter on the basis of
pleadings and evidence led.
20. The appeal stands disposed of along with all pending applications.



DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J
MARCH 12, 2026/ dd

Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2026 Page 7 of 7

Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.03.2026
11:28:46