Rk Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

¶1

$~33 to 35

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 12.02.2026

¶4

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 55/2026, I.A. 3706/2026 (Seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates) & I.A. 3707/2026 (Ex.)

¶5

R K ASSOCIATES AND HOTELIERS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr. Nitish Kant Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana and Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiran Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Mr. Parmeet Singh and Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Advocates

¶8

34

¶9

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 56/2026, I.A. 3708/2026 (Seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates) & I.A. 3709/2026 (For Exemption)

¶10

RK ASSOCIATES AND HOTELIERS PVT. LTD. ...Petitioner

¶11

Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr. Nitish Kant Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana and Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocates

¶12

versus

¶13

INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiran Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Mr. Parmeet Singh

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 55/2026 & connected petitions By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 13.0 2.2026 16:58:06

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

and Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Advocates

¶17

35

¶18

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 57/2026, I.A. 3710/2026 (Seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates) & I.A. 3711/2026 (Ex.)

¶19

RK ASSOCIATES AND HOTELIERS PVT. LTD. ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr. Nitish Kant Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana and Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocates

¶20

versus

¶21

INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiran Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Mr. Parmeet Singh and Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Advocates

¶22

CORAM:

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶24

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

¶25

The present Petitions filed under under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [ “Act” ], seek inter alia interim protection against demands raised by the Respondent towards additional licence fee, increased security deposit, and withholding of catering service payments.

¶26

At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that disputes relating to the demand of enhanced licence fee, the consequential increase in security deposit, and the withholding/

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 55/2026 & connected petitions By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 13.0 2.2026 16:58:06

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

adjustment of catering service payments between the parties are already the subject matter of pending arbitral proceedings before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.), learned Sole Arbitrator, appointed vide order dated 24.11.2025 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 483/2025. It is further submitted that the said arbitral proceedings are listed before the learned Arbitrator on 14.02.2026.

¶30

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that the present petitions have been necessitated on account of an apprehension that the Respondent is likely to make certain deductions. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, if such deductions are permitted to be carried out, the very purpose of filing the present petitions seeking to interdict the same would be rendered otiose. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has, therefore, strenuously urged that the Court be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act and pass orders protecting any such deductions that they apprehend are likely to take place. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that since as disputes of the similar nature are pending between the parties and are likely to be taken up on 14.02.2026 by the learned Sole Arbitrator, the present petitions may also be treated as applications under Section 17 of the Act and expeditiously be placed before the learned Sole Arbitrator preferably on the same date or any date as expeditiously as possible for the purpose of adjudication. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the same is a reasonable suggestion.

¶31

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Hon’ble Mr.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 55/2026 & connected petitions By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 13.0 2.2026 16:58:06

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Shakdher, former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court (Mobile No. ), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the instant disputes as well.

¶36

The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“ DIAC ”] and will abide by its rules and regulations.

¶37

The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as set out in the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC. 10. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to apprise the learned Arbitrator of this Order forthwith. 11. Since Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Shakdher is already in seisin of another proceedings between the parties, the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act is dispensed with. 12. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the learned arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e- mail.

¶38

So far as the reliefs sought in these petitions are concerned, the present petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act are directed to be treated as applications under Section 17 of the Act. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the records of these petitions to the learned Sole Arbitrator, to be taken on record as applications under Section 17, upon which appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶39

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

¶40

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 55/2026 & connected petitions By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 13.0 2.2026 16:58:06

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties.

¶45

The parties are at liberty to raise all objections, including with respect to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

¶46

Let a copy of this Order be transmitted to the DIAC for necessary information and action.

¶47

Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶48

A photocopy of this Order be placed in the connected matters.

¶49

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 12, 2026/rk/her/jk

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 55/2026 & connected petitions By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 13.0 2.2026 16:58:06

¶52

Page 5 of 5

Rk Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rk Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Vishwa-Bvsr Jv

Ms Shree Binayak Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ms Legit Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Djm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Jabalpur Airport

Link Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Eminent Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Suresh Batheja Vs Ramesh Chand Batheja

M/S Safety Controls and Devices Ltd. Vs NTPC Renewable Energy Limited and Ors.