Disposed

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation v. M/S Kapoor Tent and Caterers

Delhi HC8 Apr 2026ARB.P./165/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator arising from disputes over unpaid license fees and termination of a railway catering contract. The respondent did not dispute the arbitration clause. The Court appointed Mr. Lorren Bamniyal as Sole Arbitrator, with proceedings under DIAC aegis.

What did the court decide?

Mr. Lorren Bamniyal appointed Sole Arbitrator; arbitration to proceed under DIAC Rules; respondent free to raise counter-claims; parties to approach Arbitrator within two weeks.

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Vs M/S Kapoor Tent… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 165/2026 INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Sunil Goyal, Ms. Deepa Rathore and Ms. Happy Kumari, Advs. versus

¶5

M/S KAPOOR TENT AND CATERERS .....Respondent

¶6

Through: Mr. Akshat Bajpai, Mr. Shobhit Trehan, Mr. Atul Pandey, Ms. Renuka Parmanand, Ms. Vedika Dalmia and Ms. Jayashree Mishra, Advs. (M:7985177435) Email: [email protected]

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

08.04.2026

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of the Open E-Tender Cum Auction Bid Document for Operation, Maintenance and Provision of Catering Services In / Through Refreshment Rooms (Kitchen Unit) (“E-Tender”).

¶12

As per the facts on record, the respondent was awarded the License in relation to the E-Tender on 04^th August, 2021, and subsequently the same

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶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 13/04/2026 at 11:07:33

¶16

was accepted by the respondent vide the Letter of Acceptance dated 11^th August, 2021, for a period of five years.

¶17

Consequently, the petitioner, vide Letter dated 25^th April, 2022 called upon the respondent to submit the License Fee for Operation of Refreshment Room at Lucknow Junction Railway Station.

¶18

Thereafter, vide Letter dated 29^th July, 2022, the petitioner rejected the respondent’s representations seeking reduction in license fees and reiterated that the terms and conditions of the tender document were binding.

¶19

Subsequently, a final reminder dated 31^st August, 2022 was issued, demanding payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 58,31,705/(Rupees Fifty Eight Lakh Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Five only), i.e., outstanding dues, for the period, 22^nd December 2021 to 21^st December 2022.

¶20

In furtherance to the same, a Show Cause Notice dated 29^th September, 2022 was issued to the respondent on account of non-payment of license fees, treating the same as a breach of the tender conditions.

¶21

Pursuant to the respondent’s continuing default and its failure to clear the outstanding amount, the petitioner was constrained to terminate the Contract vide Letter dated 18^th January, 2023, in exercise of its rights under Clause 3.7 thereof.

¶22

Thus, on account of the disputes arising between the parties regarding non-payment of license fees, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 5.1 of the General Conditions of License in the E-Tender vide Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act dated 12^th December, 2025, which was duly served upon the respondent.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

This is a digitally signed order. 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 13/04/2026 at 11:07:33

¶25

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Clause 5 of the of the General Conditions of License in the E-Tender, that contains the Arbitration Clause between the parties i.e.

¶26

Clause 5.1, which is reproduced here as under:

¶27

Perusal of the aforesaid Arbitration Clause clearly shows that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, which stipulates reference of disputes between the parties to Sole Arbitrator. Further, the place of arbitration is also at New Delhi.

¶28

Though the respondent has taken numerous objections in their reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the rights and contentions of the respondent are kept open, he has no objection if an Arbitrator is appointed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further does not dispute

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

¶32

the Arbitration Clause between the parties.

¶33

Considering the consent given by learned counsel appearing for respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator and no objection with regard to the arbitration clause, this Court finds no impediment in appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that they have a claim of approximately Rs. 58 Lacs. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the arbitration be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”).

¶35

Therefore, this Court is satisfied that there are disputes between the parties and a valid Arbitration Clause, and accordingly the disputes are to be adjudicated by way of referring the parties to arbitral proceedings. 17. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court the following directions are issued:

¶36

i) Mr. Lorren Bamniyal, Former Member (Judicial), Real Estate Appellate Tribunal of NCT of Delhi and UT of Chandigarh (Mob: +91 9910390952) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶37

ii) The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the aegis and Rules of DIAC, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi.

¶38

iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event of any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that Count, the

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 13/04/2026 at 11:07:33

¶42

parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court. v) It shall be open to the respondent to raise counter-claims, if any, in arbitration proceedings.

¶43

vi) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. vii) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two (02) weeks from the date of appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶44

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶45

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 20. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, DIAC, as well as the learned Arbitrator, for information and compliance.

¶46

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶47

APRIL 8, 2026/JYH

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 13/04/2026 at 11:07:33

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation v. M/S Kapoor Tent and Caterers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation v. M/S Kapoor Tent and Caterers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zeal Education Trust Vs M/S Innovativeprojectmanagement Servicespvt. Ltd.

Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Vs Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mmr Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors and Ors.

Mubarak Ghanim S. a. A1 Saleh Vs Mrs. Masroora Banu

M/S Inspritaion Solutions Opc Private Limited Vs M/S Aimer Business School & Ors.

Pradeep & Ors. Vs Mahender Singh & Ors.