Aja Clothings Llp Regd. Partnership Firm vs Ms. Saroj Malik & Anr.

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010505932026
+ FAO (COMM) 310/2026, CM APPL. 72857/2026, CM APPL.
72858/2026 & CM APPL. 72859/2026
AJA CLOTHINGS LLP REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Gargesh & Mr.
Pradeep Kumar, Advocates.

versus

MS. SAROJ MALIK & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: None .

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
J U D G M E N T
(ORAL)
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. The appeal in hands is directed against the judgment and order dated

17.07.2026 passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01,
South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Commercial Court’) whereby the application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of
1996’) filed by the appellant was rejected.
2. The facts narrated in a nut-shell are that the appellant and the
respondents entered into a registered lease deed dated 10.06.2019 in relation
to a commercial property owned by the respondents. The said lease deed
Signature Not Verified
FAO (COMM) 310/2026 Page 1 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:29:06

contained an arbitration clause for resolution of the dispute and in terms of the
said clause, the respondents lodged a claim in relation to arrears of two
months’ rent for January-February, 2021 for which a legal notice dated
05.03.2021 had been issued and the lease deed had been later terminated.
3. During the course of arbitral proceedings, the appellant took a plea that
on account of spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the premises remained unused
and could not be vacated and thus the lessor was not justified in demanding
rent for such period.
4. The sole Arbitrator, who was appointed by the Delhi High Court vide
its order dated 28.09.2021 in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 passed an
award dated 01.06.2023. It has been observed in the award, inter alia , that
admittedly the cheques issued towards arrears of rent for the months of
January, 2021 to March, 2021 were paid by the appellant to respondent no.1
and were subsequently dishonoured. Thus, the sole Arbitrator held the
respondent entitled for a sum of Rs.10,40,587/- along with the interest of 10%
p.a. as calculated: -
Use and Occupation Charges Rs.5,20,056/- (plus CGST minus TDS)
Enhancement of Load Rs.93,625/-
Water/Sewerage Charges Rs.1,13,000/-
Electricity Bill Rs.1,14,912/-
Total Rs.10,40,587/-


5. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the appellant preferred an
application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and sought setting aside of the
award on various grounds.
6. The Commercial Court vide its judgment dated 17.07.2026 considered
Signature Not Verified
FAO (COMM) 310/2026 Page 2 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:29:06

the contentions and arguments of the parties and found that no case for setting
aside the award within the scope of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 has been
made out.
7. Learned counsel argued that the appellant is a Limited Liability
Partnership and a plea was taken that one of the partners being partner with
only 5% share in the partnership cannot be held jointly liable for the liabilities
of the firm, but such plea was not properly considered by the Commercial
Court.
8. He further argued that during the period of lockdown, the
respondent-lessor could not have claimed/demanded the lease money or the
rent.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that
the argument that one of the partner with 5% share in the partnership cannot
be held jointly and severally liable, has no substance in the eye of law.
10. In a Limited Liability Partnership, the liability of a partner is governed
by the partnership deed. That apart, if the award of the Arbitrator is taken into
account, no separate liability of individual partner(s) has been fixed; the
award has been passed against all the respondents (firm as well as other
co-respondents). And therefore, it is only at the time of execution of the
award, that the Executing Court would consider as to what amount is to be
recovered and in what manner, having due regard to the law in this regard. But
for this reason, the award passed by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be in any
manner, illegal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any law
which postulates that during the period of Covid-19/pandemic, rent or lease
money was not payable.
Signature Not Verified
FAO (COMM) 310/2026 Page 3 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:29:06

12. Learned Commercial Court has taken into consideration, the law
dealing with the scope of the Court’s interference under Section 34 of the Act
of 1996 and has rightly reached a conclusion that it is not a fit case, warranting
interference.
13. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order. The appeal is,
therefore, rejected.
14. Pending applications also stand disposed of.


(DINESH MEHTA)
JUDGE


ADITI CHOUDHARY
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ nk

Signature Not Verified
FAO (COMM) 310/2026 Page 4 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:29:06