Sh. Sunder Lal Gupta vs. M/S Sahyog Hospitality And Ors Through Its Partners
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sh. Sunder Lal Gupta, filed a contempt petition (OMP (CONT.) 5/2025) and an enforcement petition (OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025) against M/s Sahyog Hospitality and others. Both petitions sought to enforce an order dated 06.11.2025 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal's order directed the respondents to deposit 81.25% of monthly mesne profits amounting to Rs. 25,86,095/- for 12 months, along with proportionate GST, and also restrained them from altering the subject property. The contempt petition was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner. The enforcement petition proceeded, with the judgment debtors arguing it was not maintainable due to a final arbitral award having been rendered.
Held
The Court addressed two petitions. In OMP (CONT.) 5/2025, the petitioner withdrew the contempt petition, and it was dismissed as withdrawn. In OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025, the Court considered the argument that the enforcement petition was not maintainable due to the existence of a final arbitral award. The Court held a prima facie view that this contention might not be entirely correct. The Court reasoned that Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically provides for the enforcement of interim measures granted by an Arbitral Tribunal. If the judgment debtors' interpretation were accepted, it would render the statutory mechanism for enforcing interim measures nugatory. The Court granted the judgment debtors' request for time to advance further submissions and directed both parties to file brief notes. The matter was listed for further arguments. The issue of GST was mentioned in the arbitral order but not directly argued or decided in this High Court proceeding.
Key Issues
1. Whether the enforcement petition (OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025) filed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable when a final arbitral award has been rendered, thereby potentially curtailing the statutory period for challenging the award under Section 34 of the Act? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner's counsel did not advance arguments on this issue as the contempt petition was withdrawn. However, the court's prima facie view suggests the enforcement of interim measures under Section 17(2) is a distinct statutory mechanism. Revenue/State's argument (Judgment Debtors): The judgment debtors, through their senior counsel, argued that the enforcement petition is not maintainable because a final arbitral award has been rendered. They contended that the subject matter is covered by the award, and proceeding with enforcement would be contrary to the Act's scheme, specifically curtailing the three-month period for challenging an award under Section 34.
Sections Cited
Section 27(5), Section 17(2), Section 34
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Judgment Debtors in person – Mr. Amit Jidani and Mr. Jitender Puri.
SH. SUNDER LAL GUPTA
.....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Manoj Chouhan and Ms. Neha Raj Singh, Advocates.
versus
M/S SAHYOG HOSPITALITY AND OTHERS THROUGH
ITS PARTNERS
.....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vijay Kasana, Mr. Chirag Verma, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocates with Judgment Debtors in person – Mr. Amit Jidani and Mr. Jitender Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR 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 25/03/2026 at 13:05:28
O R D E R %
2026 OMP (CONT.) 5/2025
The present Petition has been filed under Section 27(5) read with Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondent/Contemnor for alleged wilful disobedience of the Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have failed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Arbitrator vide Order dated 06.11.2025, particularly paragraph no. 4 thereof, which reads as under:
“4. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is allowed by directing the Respondent to deposit with the DIAC within 10 days the amount payable towards 81.25% of monthly mesne profits @ Rs.25,86,095/- for the last 12 months i.e. from 01.11.2024 till 31.10.2025. The Respondent will also deposit the proportionate GST on the aforesaid amount with the statutory authorities. The Claimant's prayer for directing the Respondents to continue to deposit monthly mesne profits during the pendency of these proceedings will be considered on the next date. Once the deposit is made with the DIAC, it will be open for the Claimants to move an appropriate application before this Tribunal to seek release of the said amount as per law. Further, the Respondents will remain restrained from making any changes or alterations in the subject property as also from creating any third-party rights in the same during the pendency of these proceedings.”
At the outset, the record reflects that there is also an Enforcement Petition, being OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 284/2025, filed in respect of the very same Order and directions contained therein, passed by the learned Arbitrator.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that he does not wish to press the present Contempt Petition. 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 25/03/2026 at 13:05:28
The present Contempt Petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed as withdrawn.
The present Petition has been filed under Section 17(2) of the Act, read with Order XXI Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking enforcement of the Arbitral Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Judgment Debtors, contends that the present Petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that a final Arbitral Award has since been rendered.
He submits that the subject matter of the present Petition stands substantially covered by the final Award and, therefore, the present proceedings would, in effect, amount to seeking enforcement of the Award itself. It is his contention that such a course would be contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act, which provides a period of three months for initiating proceedings under Section 34 for challenging the Award, during which period enforcement proceedings cannot ordinarily be initiated.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that permitting the present Petition to proceed would, in effect, curtail the statutory period of three months available to a party for assailing the Award under Section 34 of the Act, and on that basis he urges that the present Petition is not maintainable.
This Court is, however, of the prima facie view that the aforesaid contention may not be entirely correct. The Act specifically provides, under Section 17(2), for enforcement of interim measures 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 25/03/2026 at 13:05:28
granted by the Arbitral Tribunal. If the interpretation sought to be canvassed on behalf of the Judgment Debtors were to be accepted, the statutory mechanism for enforcement of interim measures would be rendered nugatory.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Judgment Debtors seeks time to advance further submissions on the issue. The said request is allowed.
The parties are directed to file a brief note, not exceeding one page, in support of their respective submissions.
List on 07.04.2026 for further arguments.
A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected matters.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MARCH 19, 2026/nd/kr/sg 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 25/03/2026 at 13:05:28
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.