M/S AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED vs AMIT BHASIN, PROPRIETOR OF RETAIL INDIA SOLUTIONS

Judgment text excerpt

$~14 & 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 8th September, 2025 + FAO (COMM) 222/2025 M/S AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Ms. Nandini Singh & Mr. Keshav Tejpal, Advs. versus AMIT BHASIN, PROPRIETOR OF RETAIL INDIA SOLUTIONS .....Respondent Through: Mr. N.K. Vohra & Mr. Lalit Kumar Vohra, Advs. 15 AND + FAO (COMM) 223/2025 M/S AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Ms. Nandini Singh & Mr. Keshav Tejpal, Advs. versus AMIT BHASIN PROPRIETOR OF RETAIL INDIA SOLUTIONS .....Respondent Through: Mr. N.K. Vohra & Mr. Lalit Kumar Vohra, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. These are two appeals under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) challenging the impugned orders dated 4th August, 2025 passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial Court-02) Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNITA FAO (COMM) 222/2025 and connected matter Page 1 of 14 KUMARI Signing Date:10.09.2025 22:47:44 Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter ‘the ld. Commercial Court’). The impugned orders are interim orders passed in Petitions under Section 9 of the Act. The same arise out of an arbitration clause contained in the two franchise agreements dated 31st January, 2022 (hereinafter, ‘the subject agreements’). 3. The brief background of this case is that the Respondent had entered into two franchise agreements for opening of two outlets by the name ‘Mamagoto’ and ‘Dhaba’. Disputes had arisen between the parties in respect of payment of franchise fee, etc. The Appellant preferred the petitions under Section 9 of the Act being, OMP (I) (COMM) No. 863/2025 and O