Disposed

Seth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Seth & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2025CS(OS)/392/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought to declare an arbitration award and the consequent compromise decree null and void for fraud. The Court held no suit lies against a compromise decree and, unopposed by defendants, converted the suit into an Order XXIII Rule 3 application in the original suit and listed it there.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of with direction to registry to convert it into an application in CS(OS) 1417/2004, listed on 22.01.2026.

Seth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Seth & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~O-65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 392/2014, I.A. 6911/2019 & REVIEW PET. 200/2019

¶4

SETH HOTEL PVT LTD .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Mr. Swapan Singhal and Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SATISH KUMAR SETH & ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr. Neeraj Gautam, Adv. for D-1&2. Mr. Atul K. Bandhu, Ms. Deepika Jain and Ms.Kusum, Advs. for D-1013.

¶8

Ms. Adya Rao, Adv. for D-14 to 16.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.12.2025

¶11

1. The instant suit has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶12

“a. Pass a decree declaring the Arbitration Award dated 23.06.2013 passed by the Arbitrator Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Gupta (Retd.), and the consequent Order/Decree dated 27.09.2013 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CS (OS) No. 1417 of 2004, being without jurisdiction, illegal and null and void;

¶13

b. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, assigns, successors and representatives from dealing and/or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, interfering in construction of the Hotel of the plaintiff and rights of the plaintiff as lawful owner, and from claiming and/or representing themselves to have any right, title and interest in the Properties of the Plaintiff Company, admeasuring 798.40 sq.mtrs along with 400 sq.mtrs open space situated at Plot No. 17, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and property admeasuring 156.31 sq. mtrs

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:41:12

¶16

situated at adjoining to Plot No. 17, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, DelhiPlot No. 17 in District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, in any manner whatsoever; and

¶17

c. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.”

¶18

The prayer would clearly indicate that the decree passed by this Court on 27.09.2013 in CS(OS) 1417/2004 is under challenge.

¶19

Various submissions have been made by Mr. Vashisht during the course of arguments and he tries to highlight that the decree is vitiated on account of fraud and misrepresentation.

¶20

However, the legal position with respect to assailing a compromise decree is no longer res integra . This Court in the case of Vipin Wadhwa v. M/s Prashant Enterprises and Ors.¹ , reiterating the decision of the Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Singh vs Anirudh Singh (D) Thr. Lrs² , and has categorically held that no suit shall lie to set aside the decree on the ground that a compromise, on which the decree was passed, was not lawful.

¶21

In the case at hand, it is the compromise which essentially was entered into between the parties during the course of arbitration proceedings and has been made the rule of the Court. Therefore, it is the compromise decree which is essentially under challenge. 6. In deference to the aforesaid observation by the Court, Mr. Vashisht submits that since the filing of the civil suit, much development has taken place and the matter is in the advance stages of final hearing. He, therefore, submits that it would be in the interest of justice, if the Court considers to treat the instant civil suit and the material available on record to be an

¶22

1 2025:DHC:5229

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:41:12

¶25

application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in a disposed of suit bearing no. CS(OS) 1417/2004.

¶26

The aforesaid submission seems to be reasonable and is not opposed by the defendants.

¶27

Under these circumstances, let this suit be treated to be an application to have been filed in CS(OS) 1417/2004 and let the same be listed for consideration.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the instant suit stands disposed of.

¶29

Let the registry to convert the instant suit into an application and list the same in CS(OS)1417/2004 on 22.01.2026 before the Roster Bench, subject to the orders of the Hon’ble Judge In-charge.

¶30

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶31

DECEMBER 2, 2025/P/KSR

¶32

2 AIR 2020 SC 2111

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:41:12

Seth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Seth & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Seth & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Tripat Kaur & Anr. Vs Sh. Tejpal Singh Suri & Anr.

Sarv Prakash Mehra Vs Ravi Malhotra

Healthcubed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alkemi Growth Capital LLP and Ors.

Syed Neelam Akhtar Vs Jitender Jain and Anr.

Ms Neelam Talwar Vs Mr Surender Malhotra & Ors.

Sh. Narinder Prakash Sharma & Anr. Vs Mrs. Raj Kumari Sharma

Rajat Gangahar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Babita & Ors. Vs Jabbar Singh & Ors.

Irb Westcoast Tollway Ltd. & Ors. Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Mohd Asif Proprietor of Sara Textiles and Anr.

Smt Tripat Kaur & Anr. Vs Sh. Tejpal Singh Suri & Anr.

Talkcharge Technologies Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Kanwarji Construction Co. Vs Union of India

Shyam Gopal Dewan Vs Radha Soami Satsang Beas