[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Pure Spirits vs M/S Rat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11830-DB
COMAP No. 112 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. M/S PURE SPIRITS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 70B, PURNA DAS ROAD
1ST FLOOR, P.O. SARAT BOSE ROAD
P.S. RABINDRA SAROBAR
KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 700 029
ALSO HAVING PLACE OF BUSINESS AT:
Digitally HYATT REGENCY KOLKATA
signed by JA-1, SECTOR-3, SALT LAKE CITY
AMBIKA H B KOLKATA - 700 106
Location:
High Court REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
of Karnataka MR. RAHUL DAS
BEING THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
2. MR. RAHUL DAS
PARTNER, M/S PURE SPIRITS
S/O MR. RAKHAL DAS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT ZELIANGRONG VILLAGE
WARD NO.18, DIMAPUR
NAGALAND - 797 117
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11830-DB
COMAP No. 112 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. MR. ASHISH KUMAR DEB
PARTNER
M/S PURE SPIRITS
S/O LATE MR. SUKHOMOY DEB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO. 349 P
WOMEN COLLEGE ROAD
DIMAPUR, NAGALAND - 797 112
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARNAB CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURAJ S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S RAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
5A, 3RD FLOOR, RK PLAZA
80 FT. ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE
KARNATAKA - 560 094
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. ROHIT MALHOTRA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THE COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1-A) OF
COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, READ WITH SECTION 37(1) (b) OF THE
ARBITRATIONA AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.02.2026
PASSED IN COM.A.A NO.46/2026 BY THE LEARNED LXXXIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (BENGALURU)
COMMERCIAL COURT, CCH-84 BY DINT OF WHICH THE BANK
ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN FROZEN AND THE
APPELLANTS HAVE ALSO BEEN RESTRAINED FROM CHANGE
OFFING THE BRAND NAME "PLAY BOY" IN THE VENUE AT "THE
HYATT REGENCY" KOLKATA & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11830-DB
COMAP No. 112 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section
37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]
impugning an ex parte order dated 06.02.2026 [impugned order]
passed by the learned LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-84) [Commercial Court] in
COM. AA 46/2026. The respondent has filed the said petition
under Section 9 of the A&C Act, seeking interim measures of
protection. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court
has restrained the appellants from changing the brand name of
'Playboy' used at the current venue at 'The Hyatt Regency',
Kolkata, JA-1, JA Block, Sector 3, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West
Bengal. Additionally, the learned commercial court has restrained
the appellants from operating, withdrawing, transferring or
otherwise dealing with the specific bank accounts bearing bank
account Nos.73610000209990 and 09090200001637 maintained
with Bank of Baroda, Barbari Road Branch, Guwahati and the
NC: 2026:KHC:11830-DB
HC-KAR
current bank account bearing No.110305002235 maintained with
ICICI Bank, Salt Lake Sector-III Branch, Kolkata.
2. It is clear from the above that the import of the impugned
order is very wide and has the propensity to bring the business of
the appellants to a complete stop.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits the
appellant firm is a sub-franchise of the respondent, who claims to
be a franchisee of the brand 'Playboy' under a Master Franchise
Agreement. He submits that it is now discovered that the Master
Franchise Agreement may not be operative and there is a serious
dispute whether the respondent ‒ company is a franchisee of the
proprietor of the brand. He submits that the respondent also wears
another hat of being a partner of the appellant firm. The
respondent claims 7% of the gross proceeds as royalty fee, which
works out to approximately `12 to 13 lakhs per month. He submits
that the respondent has also entered into agreements with other
parties under which the said parties pay only approximately a sum
of `6 lakhs per month. He submits that given the uncertainty
involved in carrying on the business as a franchisee, the appellant
is not willing to proceed with the said business. He submits that the
NC: 2026:KHC:11830-DB
HC-KAR
appellants cannot be compelled to carry on a business, which they
do not intend to.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits
that if the appellants are permitted to change their brand, the
respondent would be put to loss of a brand fees of `1 crore paid by
the respondent.
5. It is apparent from the above that the disputes involve rival
monetary claims. However, the appellants' bank accounts cannot
be frozen solely on that ground. Thus, the impugned order to the
effect that it compels the appellants from using a particular brand
also requires consideration.
6. Given the nature of the disputes, prima facie, we are unable
to accept that an ex parte order of such wide import is sustainable.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties state that
since the matter is listed before the learned Commercial Court on
02.03.2026, the impugned order may be set aside with liberty to the
parties to advance their submissions before the learned
Commercial Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:11830-DB
HC-KAR
8. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order.
9. The appellants shall file their statements of objections, if any,
before the next date of hearing. We request the learned
Commercial Court to dispose of the application under Section 9 of
the A&C Act as expeditiously as possible.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
11. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26
