[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Cafe By Soul Pvt Ltd vs Babli Saini Global Hospitality Pvt Ltd on 7 April, 2026
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.04.2026
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 27/2026
CAFE BY SOUL PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Bajaj, Ms. Shivaarti
Bajaj and Mr. Sanjay Jha,
Advocates.
versus
BABLI SAINI GLOBAL HOSPITALITY PVT LTD
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nikhil Fernandes and Mr.
Harshit Goel, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking the following
reliefs:
"(a) Pass an order of ad-interim/interim injunction directing the
Respondent, its directors, officers, agents, representatives and all
persons acting for or on its behalf to maintain complete status quo
in respect of possession, management, operations and day-to-day
functioning of the Cafe By Soul outlet, including its branding,
signage, interiors, fixtures, fittings, equipment, branded crockery
and all other material and operational aspects, at M3M 65th
Avenue, Sector-65, Gurugram, and restraining the Respondent
from closing, shutting down, discontinuing, suspending, interfering
with or in any- manner hampering the operations of the said outlet
Act
until the final adjudication of the present proceedings or until
further orders of this Hon'ble Court.
(b) Restrain the Respondent, its directors, officers, agents and all
persons acting on its behalf from altering, removing or tampering
with the name, signage, logo, trademarks, trade dress, interiors,
fixtures or fittings of the said outlet, or from using any mark
identical or deceptively similar to the Petitioner's trademarks;
(c) Restrain the Respondent, its directors, officers, agents and all
persons acting on its behalf from using, disclosing, transferring,
destroying or misappropriating the Petitioner's intellectual
property, confidential information, operational manuals, recipes,
POS systems or other proprietary materials;
(d) Direct the Respondent to furnish complete and true disclosure
of POS data, daily and monthly sales reports and bank statements
of the outlet from the effective date of the Master Franchise
Agreement and to continue such disclosure during pendency of the
arbitral proceedings;
(e) Direct the Respondent to deposit admitted and/or accrued
franchise commissions before this Hon'ble Court or in such manner
as may be directed, or in the alternative to furnish adequate
security to secure the Petitioner's monetary claims;
(f) Grant ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of prayers (a) to (g)
above in view of the imminent threat of irreparable injury and
creation of a fait accompli;
(g) Award costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner;
and
(h) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The present disputes are stated to have arisen out of a Master
Franchise Agreement dated 10.07.20242, which contains a dispute
resolution clause, being clause 16.6 of the Agreement, which is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"16.6. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution
Agreement
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws prevailing in India and be subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the competent courts of Delhi. The Parties shall
endeavor to resolve the disputes mutually. In the event, both the
parties fail to resolve any disputes mutually, the disputes shall be
referred to final and binding arbitration under the provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For this purpose, the
Parties in dispute shall jointly appoint a sole arbitrator. If the
Parties in dispute fail to agree on the sole arbitrator within thirty
(30) days, then the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the High
Court of Delhi The place of arbitration shall be at Delhi and the
language of arbitration shall be English. The arbitration award shall
be final and binding upon the Parties."
3. After advancing some arguments, learned counsel appearing for
the parties are ad idem that instead of adjudication of the present
Petition on merits, the disputes as between the parties be referred to
arbitration.
4. Since the parties have mutually consented to adjudication of
their disputes by way of Arbitration and to the appointment of a Sole
Arbitrator, this Court is of the view that the commencement of arbitral
proceedings should not be unduly delayed.
5. Accordingly, in view of the consent of the parties, the
requirement of initiation of separate proceedings under Section 11 of
the Act is dispensed with.
6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
value of the claims raised herein is approximately Rs. 2.5 crores,
which is controverted by the learned counsel for the Respondent.
7. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that both parties are ad idem
that the matter be referred to Arbitration, this Court is of the view that
a Sole Arbitrator be appointed for the purpose of resolution of
disputes between the parties.
8. Accordingly, this Court hereby requests Ms. Zeba Khair,
Advocate (Mobile No. 9810602612), to enter upon the reference and
adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.
9. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite
disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within a week
of entering the reference.
10. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Respondent through all permissible modes, including electronic
means. The Petitioner shall also take steps to serve a copy of this order
upon the Respondents.
11. The parties shall share the learned Arbitrator's fee and arbitral
costs equally.
12. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be
decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance
with law.
13. Accordingly, the present Petition under Section 9 of the Act
shall be treated as an Application under Section 17 of the Act, and
appropriate directions may be passed by the learned Arbitrator after
entering upon the reference.
14. Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy.
15. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending
Application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
APRIL 07, 2026/nd/kr/sg
