M/S PACIFIC HOSPITALITY vs M/S MASSIVE RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED

Judgment text excerpt

$~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 124/2025, CM APPL. 29267/2025 & CM APPL. 32606/2025 M/S PACIFIC HOSPITALITY .....Appellant Through: Ms. Bhabna Das and Mr. Arpit Kumar Mishra, Advs. versus M/S MASSIVE RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Aarushi Jain, Mr. Yojit Pareek, Ms. Ankita and Mr. Prashant Kr. Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 23.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR J. 1. This appeal assails an order passed by the District Judge (Commercial) Patiala House Courts1 in OMP (I) (Comm) 294/2024, preferred by the respondent, as the petitioner, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962. 2. The learned Commercial Court has, after a detailed order, disposed of the application under Section 9 in the following terms: “14. Now coming to the prima-facie case under Section 9 of the 1 “learned Commercial Court” hereinafter 2 “the 1996 Act” hereinafter FAO (COMM) 124/2025 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.07.2025 13:47:52 Act for grant of protection during pre-arbitration stage, as prayed by petitioner, the Franchisee Agreement clearly shows that petitioner is the owner of brand ‘FARZI Cafe’ and petitioner has appointed the respondent be the exclusive franchisee of the franchisor in Hyderabad at the licensed premises for marketing and selling the franchisor’s products and services under trade name ‘FARZI cafe’ during the subsistence of the Agreement. It is evident from documents on record that Franchisee Agreement has already been expired by efflux of time and despite the expiry of Franchisee Agreement and without existence of valid renewal or extension in accordance with the clause