[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Brandavan Food Products vs Indian Railway Catering And Tourism ... on 13 March, 2026
$~42 to 44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.03.2026
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 93/2026 & I.A. 6431/2026 (For
Exemption)
M/S BRANDAVAN FOOD PRODUCTS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Ms. Mehak
Khurana, Ms. Sapna Jha and
Mr. Shashank Mishra,
Advocates.
versus
INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM
CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiran
Devrani, Mr. Anshuman
Chowdhury, Mr. Parmeet Singh
and Ms. Samayra Adlakha,
Advocates.
43
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 94/2026 & I.A. 6432/2026 (For
Exemption)
M/S BRANDAVAN FOOD PRODUCTS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Ms. Mehak
Khurana, Ms. Sapna Jha and
Mr. Shashank Mishra,
Advocates.
versus
INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM
CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiran
Devrani, Mr. Anshuman
Chowdhury, Mr. Parmeet Singh
and Ms. Samayra Adlakha,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 93/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:49:40
44
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 95/2026 & I.A. 6433/2026 (For
Exemption)
M/S BRANDAVAN FOOD PRODUCTS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Ms. Mehak
Khurana, Ms. Sapna Jha and
Mr. Shashank Mishra,
Advocates.
versus
INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM
CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiran
Devrani, Mr. Anshuman
Chowdhury, Mr. Parmeet Singh
and Ms. Samayra Adlakha,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
1. The present Petitions, being O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 93/2026,
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 94/2026 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 95/2026, filed
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["Act"],
have been filed seeking certain ad interim reliefs, inter alia, direction
to Respondent to release amounts of Rs. 2,12,50,534/- in O.M.P.(I)
(COMM.) 93/2026, Rs. 2,70,31,480/- in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 94/2026
and stay of operation and effect of distinct Demand Notices sent by
the Respondent demanding „additional license fee‟ and „additional
security deposit‟.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits
that disputes relating to the demand of enhanced licence fee, the
consequential increase in security deposit, and the withholding/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 93/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 5
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:49:40
adjustment of catering service payments between the parties are
already the subject matter of a pending arbitral proceedings before
Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.), learned Sole Arbitrator,
appointed vide order dated 24.11.2025 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)
483/2025.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that the
present Petitions have been necessitated on account of an
apprehension that the Respondent is likely to make certain deductions.
According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, if such deductions
are permitted to be carried out, the very purpose of filing the present
Petitions seeking to interdict the same would be rendered otiose.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has, therefore, urged that the
Court be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act
and pass orders protecting any such deductions that they apprehend
are likely to take place.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
since disputes of a similar nature are pending between the parties and
are likely to be taken up on 18.03.2026 by the learned Sole Arbitrator,
the present Petitions may also be treated as applications under Section
17 of the Act and placed before the learned Sole Arbitrator, preferably
on the same date or any date as expeditiously as possible for the
purpose of adjudication.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties, and with their able assistance, perused the material on
record and relevant documents passed across the bar.
7. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the suggestion
of the learned counsel of the parties, to refer the present matters to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 93/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 5
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:49:40
Arbitration before the same Sole Arbitrator, who is already in sesin of
matters between the same parties and upon similar issues, is
reasonable.
8. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this Court requests
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Shakdher, former Chief Justice
of Himachal Pradesh High Court (Mobile No. 9717495004) to enter
into the reference to adjudicate the instant disputes as well.
9. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi
International Arbitration Centre ["DIAC"] and will abide by its rules
and regulations.
10. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as set out in
the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
11. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to apprise the
learned Sole Arbitrator of this Order forthwith.
12. Since Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Shakdher is already
in seisin of other proceedings between the parties, the requisite
disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act is dispensed with.
13. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the
learned arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e-
mail.
14. So far as the reliefs sought in these petitions are concerned, the
present Petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act are directed to be
treated as Applications under Section 17 of the Act. The Registry is
directed to forthwith transmit the records of the present Petitions to
the learned Sole Arbitrator, to be taken on record as Applications
under Section 17, upon which appropriate orders may be passed in
accordance with law and in the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 93/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 5
Signing Date:17.03.2026
16:49:40
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole
Arbitrator on its merits, in accordance with law.
16. Needless to state, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy as
between the parties.
17. The parties are at liberty to raise all objections, including with
respect to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, before the learned Arbitral
Tribunal.
18. Let a copy of this Order be transmitted to the DIAC for
necessary information and action.
19. Accordingly, the present Petitions, along with pending
Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
20. A photocopy of this Order be placed in the connected matters.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 13, 2026/tk/dj
