Bombay HC Lets Malad Gymkhana Restaurant Stay Open For Now, As 7-Day Breach Demand Clashed With Lease’s 60-Day Cure Period

Under a Lease Deed dated 24 October 2024, Achieve Hospitality operated a restaurant and bar at Malad Gymkhana House for a nine-year term.

The deed provided a 60-day period to rectify specified breaches before termination and also recorded an arrangement for a new restaurant and two banquet halls to be offered exclusively to the Petitioner.

The Respondent alleged multiple breaches and, in its reply dated 14 February 2026, demanded correction within seven days; it later issued a termination notice dated 13 June 2026.

The Petitioner disputed the alleged breaches and sought interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including protection of its existing business and the premises contemplated by Clause 17.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to grant interim protection in aid of arbitration.

The Court applied the contractual principle that a party exercising a right to terminate must follow the termination procedure agreed by the parties; under Clause 56, the Lessee was to receive 60 days to rectify identified issues.

It also considered the interim-relief factors of prima facie case and balance of convenience.

Clause 17’s exclusivity and related terms were relevant to preserving the disputed premises, but the Court did not finally determine their enforceability.

The Respondent had particularised alleged breaches, but its reply demanded rectification within seven days, contrary to Clause 56’s 60-day period.

The fact that more than 60 days elapsed before the termination notice did not, at this stage, cure the difficulty because the notice did not provide the agreed opportunity and instead asserted termination.

The disputed breaches and the parties’ competing explanations concerning delay under Clause 17 were left for arbitration.

Clause 17 raised a prima facie claim to exclusivity, making preservation of the premises appropriate without directing their handover or deciding the clause’s ultimate enforceability.

The risk of disruption to the operating business and the need to preserve the disputed premises supported interim relief; the fire-exit concern warranted a safety direction, while the Petitioner remained bound by payment and statutory obligations.

Pending the Arbitral Tribunal’s consideration of interim protection, the Respondent was restrained from obstructing the existing restaurant and bar, and the termination notice dated 13 June 2026 was stayed.

The Respondent was also restrained from creating third-party rights or entering into a fresh commercial arrangement concerning the new restaurant and two banquet halls, without any direction to hand them over to the Petitioner.

The Respondent was directed to ensure an accessible rear fire exit or a safe and lawful alternative emergency exit.

The Petitioner was required to meet its undisputed payment obligations and comply with statutory, licensing and fire-safety requirements; all disputed issues were left open for arbitration.