Jubilant Foodworks Limited Vs Sita Ram Sokhal — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

Jubilant Foodworks Limited Vs Sita Ram Sokhal — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mr. Shyam Sharma, Advocate, appointed Sole Arbitrator; Section 9 petition to be treated as a Section 17 application before him; arbitrator to furnish Section 12(2) disclosures within one week; Registry to forward copy of the Order to the arbitrator; fee per Schedule IV of the Act or as agreed; all rights and contentions kept open; petition and pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disputes between the parties arising out of the Lease Deed should be referred to adjudication by arbitration in terms of Clause 9 (Arbitration Clause) of the Agreement, given the parties' mutual consent. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the parties mutually consented to adjudication of disputes by arbitration and to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, the commencement of arbitral proceedings ought not be unduly delayed.

Ratio / Principle

The statutory requirement of filing a separate application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator is dispensed with.

Key takeaways

Mr. Shyam Sharma, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810153965), is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.ratio¶38
The present Petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, with appropriate directions to be passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator upon entering reference.ratio¶39
Nothing in the Order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy; all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 9, 11, 17, 21, 12(2), Schedule IV — Lease dispute (Shop No. M-83, Ground Floor, M-Block Market, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi; Domino's Pizza outlet). Petitioner sought ad-interim injunctions restraining the Respondent from acting on his Reply-Cum-Termination Notice dated 16.03.2026, evicting/dispossessing the Petitioner, and disconnecting utilities. Counsel for both parties, on instructions, were ad idem that the disputes be referred to arbitration under Clause 9 of the Lease Deed (place of arbitration: New Delhi) and that the Section 9 petition be treated as a Section 17 application. The Court appointed Mr. Shyam Sharma, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator, dispensing with a separate Section 11 application; underlying dispute value stated to be not less than Rs. 2 crores. All rights and contentions left open to the arbitrator; no expression of opinion on merits. Petition disposed of.

$~55

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 15.05.2026

- O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2026 & I.A. 13166/2026 (Ex.)

JUBILANT FOODWORKS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi and Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Advocates along with Mr. Nrip Vaibhaw, AR.

versus

SITA RAM SOKHAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Aditya Ganju, Mr. Auritro, Mukherjee, Mr. Samanyu Sethi, Mr. Vatsal Agrawal, Mr. Sahil Safdar and Mr. Alzafary MK, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

The present Petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“ Act ”] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks the following ad interim reliefs:-

“A. Pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from acting upon or giving effect to the Reply-CumTermination Notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2026 Page 1 of 5 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 16.0 5.2026 13:36:45

Respondent, pending the commencement and final adjudication of the disputes by the Arbitral Tribunal;

B. Pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent, his agents, servants, employees, representatives, or any person acting for and on his behalf, from taking any coercive or physical steps to forcefully evict or dispossess the Petitioner from the Leased Premises situated at Shop No. M-83, Ground Floor, M-Block Market, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi 110048, or in any manner interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and smooth business operations of its "Domino's Pizza" outlet at the said premises;

C. Direct the parties to maintain status quo as to the possession of the Leased Premises at Shop No. M-83, Ground Floor, M- Block Market, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhl- 110048, pending the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings;

D. Pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from disconnecting, or causing the disconnection of, essential utility services including but not limited to electricity and water supply to the Leased Premises, or creating any hindrance in the Petitioner's access to the same;”

The present disputes are stated to have arisen out of an undated Lease Deed [ “Agreement” ] executed between the parties, which is stated to have commenced and come into force on 01.11.2022 and is annexed as Document No.3 to the present Petition read with Supplementary Lease Deed dated 03.04.2023 [ “Addendum” ].

The aforesaid Agreement contains a dispute resolution clause, being Clause 9 of the Agreement [ “Arbitration Clause” ]. The relevant portion whereof, being Clause 9(b), is reproduced herein under:

“ 9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(b) In case of any dispute or difference arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, then the same shall be resolved and settled with the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof. The place of Arbitration shall be New Delhi.”

The material on record also reflects that the Petitioner has, vide

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2026 Page By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 16.0 5.2026 13:36:45

2 of 5

Legal Notice dated 25.03.2026 [ “Section 21 Notice” ], invoked the aforestated Arbitration clause as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act.

The aforesaid Section 21 Notice was replied to, by the Respondent, vide a Letter dated 01.04.2026, whereby the Respondent did not consent to appointment of an Arbitrator or to initiation of the Arbitral proceedings.

However, after advancing some arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties, on instructions, submit that they are ad idem that the disputes, as between the parties, may be referred to be adjudicated by arbitration in terms of the aforestated Arbitration clause instead of adjudication of present Petition on merits.

Further, the learned counsel for the parties also submit that they are ad idem that the present Petition, under Section 9 of the Act, may be treated as an Application under Section 17 of the Act, and consequently be adjudicated upon by the learned Sole Arbitrator, so appointed.

This Court is of the considered view that since the parties have mutually consented to adjudication of disputes by way of Arbitration and, further, are ad idem to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, the commencement of arbitral proceedings ought not be unduly delayed.

Accordingly, the statutory requirement of filing of a separate Application under Section 11 of the Act, for appointment of an Arbitrator, is dispensed with.

Though, the material on record does not reflect the underlying value of the disputes inter se the parties, it is stated to be not less that Rs. 2 Crores.

Signature Not Verified

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2026 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 16.0 5.2026 13:36:45

Accordingly, this Court hereby appoints Mr. Shyam Sharma, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810153965) , as the Sole Arbitrator and requests him/her to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.

Further, the present Petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be treated as an Application under Section 17 of the Act, and appropriate directions may be passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator upon entering reference.

The learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to consider the aforesaid Application under Section 17 of the Act as expeditiously as possible.

The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within one (01) week of entering the reference.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the learned Sole Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including electronic mode.

The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to a fee in accordance with the Schedule IV of the Act or as may be agreed between the parties and the learned Arbitrator.

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on merits, in accordance with law.

Needless to state, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy.

Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2026 Page 4 of 5 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 16.0 5.2026 13:36:45

Application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MAY 15, 2026/nd/DJ

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 202/2026 Page 5 of 5 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 16.0 5.2026 13:36:45