Origami Hospitality PVT. LTD. vs. Rb Wedding And Hotels PVT. LTD. Thr. Its Director Ravi Bakhru
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Origami Hospitality Private Limited, challenged an order from the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. This order set aside a previous order and directed the Petitioner to pay interim compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- per month plus GST for the initial 30 months, and Rs. 13,00,000/- per month plus GST thereafter, until the final disposal of a suit. The dispute arose from a license agreement dated February 1, 2021, for operating a restaurant. The license fee was payable only upon commencement of business. The Petitioner argued that business could not commence due to amalgamation issues and subsequent attachment of premises by a bank. The Petitioner also raised the issue of premises being attached by the Municipal Corporation from February to April 2025.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner is liable to pay license fees from July 2021 onwards, as the Appellate Bench's finding of business commencement based on social media posts was not perverse. The issue of amalgamation was deemed irrelevant to the license agreement. However, the Court modified the interim compensation order. The Petitioner was directed to deposit license fees of Rs. 10,00,000/- per month plus GST for the first 30 months from July 2021, and Rs. 13,00,000/- per month plus GST from the 31st month onwards, but only up to January 2025. This modification considered the period the premises were under attachment by the Municipal Corporation (February-April 2025) and the fact that the Petitioner vacated the premises in September 2025, making it difficult to restart business immediately. The Petitioner was also granted credit for the Rs. 1,95,00,000/- license fees and Rs. 70,00,000/- security deposit already paid. Regarding GST, the Court held that the liability to pay GST is contractual and the Petitioner cannot avoid depositing it on the ground of the Respondent's GST registration status. All rights and contentions of the parties were expressly kept open for the Small Causes Court to decide in the suit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is liable to pay license fees from July 2021 onwards, considering the commencement of business and the circumstances surrounding it, as per the license agreement and the findings of the Appellate Bench (turning on the interpretation of the license agreement and commencement of business)? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to credit for amounts already paid and for periods when the premises were under attachment by the Municipal Corporation, impacting the interim compensation order? 3. Whether the Petitioner can avoid depositing GST on the license fee due to the Respondent's GST registration status? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that no business commenced from the licensed premises due to issues with amalgamation and subsequent attachment by a bank. They also argued for relief regarding the period the premises were attached by the Municipal Corporation. They relied on the fact that business did not commence as per the agreement's terms. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner's social media posts indicated business commencement from July 18, 2021, supporting the Appellate Bench's finding. They also fairly conceded that the Petitioner could be relieved of payment for the period of attachment by the Municipal Corporation (February-April 2025). They further admitted receipt of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- towards license fees and Rs. 70,00,000/- as security deposit. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner cannot avoid depositing GST as it is contractual.
Sections Cited
Order XV-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Megha 902_wp_1076_2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1076 OF 2026 Origami Hospitality Private Limited ...Petitioner V/s. RB Wedding and Hotels Private Limited ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Das i/b. Ms. Pravada Raut for the Petitioner. Mr. Kunal Mehta with Mr. Gautam Sahni and Mr. Aviral Jain i/b. M/s. Vesta Legal for the Respondent. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 11 MARCH 2026. P.C.: 1) Challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 21 July 2025 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court passed in Revision Application No.54 of 2025 by which the Appellate Bench has set aside order dated 28 April 2025 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court and has directed the Petitioner to pay interim compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- per month alongwith GST from July 2021 for initial 30 months and Rs.13,00,000/- per month alongwith GST from 31st month till the final disposal of the Suit. Page No.
1 of 5 11 March 2026
Megha 902_wp_1076_2026 2) I have heard Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 3) The license in respect of the premises was granted vide Agreement dated 1 February 2021. The Petitioner was to open, operate and run a restaurant from the licensed premises. The peculiarity of the arrangement between the parties was such that license fees became payable only upon commencement of business in the premises. 4) Mr. Damle submits that the Petitioner was to amalgamate adjoining premises for running of the restaurant and that amalgamation actually took place. However, amalgamated premises got attached by a bank for recovery of outstanding loan amount, on account of which no business has actually taken place from the licensed premises. He
therefore submits that the Petitioner does not have any liability to pay license fees to the Respondent. 5) In my view, the issue of amalgamation of adjoining premises is totally irrelevant for deciding the issue involved in the Petition. The License does not contemplate any such amalgamation. The License Agreement provides for payment of license fees upon commencement of business. The Appellate Court has conducted prima facie enquiry into date of commencement of business. It has taken into consideration various posts put by Petitioner on social media to the effect that the restaurant commenced on 18 July 2021. Accordingly, the Appellate Bench has directed the Petitioner to pay license fees from the month of July, Page No.
2 of 5 11 March 2026
Megha 902_wp_1076_2026 2021. I do not find any element of perversity in the said findings recorded by the Appellate Bench. 6) Mr. Damle submits that the licensed premises were attached by the Municipal Corporation for non-payment of property tax in February-2025 and that the attachment was lifted only in April 2025. Mr. Mehta fairly submits that premises were under attachment during February to April, 2025 and the Petitioner can at the moment be relieved of obligation to make payment of license fee for the months of February, March and April, 2025. 7) Mr. Mehta also admits that Rs.1,95,00,000/- towards license fees has already been paid by the Petitioner. He further admits receipt of security deposit of Rs.70,00,000/- from the Petitioner. 8) In my view, though the findings recorded by the Appellate Bench about Petitioner’s liability to pay license fees from July 2021 onwards cannot be found fault with, some credits are required to be given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was apparently running a business in the licensed premises and has vacated the same in September 2025. The premises remained under attachment of the Municipal Corporation for three months during February to April 2025. Once the restaurant stops running business for three months during February to April 2025 it is difficult to comprehend at this stage that the Petitioner may have been able to restart the business immediately from May-2025. It has vacated the premises in September-2025. Considering these unique factors, in my view as of now interim arrangement needs to be made under Order XV-A Page No.
3 of 5 11 March 2026
Megha 902_wp_1076_2026 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deposit of license fee only upto the month of January 2025. Similarly, credit needs to be given to the Petitioner in respect of amount of Rs.1,95,00,000/- and security deposit of Rs.70,00,000/- already paid. 9) So far as the liability to pay GST is concerned, the same is contractual in nature. Petitioner cannot avoid to deposit the amount of GST on the ground that GST registration of the Respondent was suspended. 10) I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Order dated 21 July 2025 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is modified to the extent that the Petitioner shall deposit before the Small Causes Court license fees @ Rs.10,00,000/- per month from July 2021 for first 30 months and Rs.13,00,000/- per month alongwith GST in respect of 31st month onwards upto January 2025. (ii) Petitioner shall be entitled to credit of Rs.1,95,00,000/- and Rs.70,00,000/- while making the deposit. (iii) The deposit shall be made by the Petitioner within a period of six weeks. (iv) Once the deposit is made, the Respondent would be at liberty to apply to the Small Causes Court by withdrawal of the amount. Page No.
4 of 5 11 March 2026
Megha 902_wp_1076_2026 11) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open to be decided by the Small Causes Court. 12) It is clarified that observations made in the order are prima facie in nature and are made only for the purpose of deciding Petitioner’s liability to deposit interim license fees. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the said observations while deciding the Suit. 13) With the above directions, the Petition is disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No.
5 of 5 11 March 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/03/2026 19:01:18
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.