Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd vs Rock Realty Pvt Ltd - Writ Petition

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd vs Rock Realty Pvt Ltd on 23 March, 2026

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2026

                   BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 4997 OF 2026 (GM- [CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/))

BETWEEN:

ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT # 1, GOLF
AVENUE, KODIHALLI, ADJOINING (KGA)
GOLF COURSE, AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE-560 008
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. AMIT JAISWAL
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADYUMNA L NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE)

AND

ROCK REALTY PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A/6
HERMES PARK SOCIETY, 30 BUND
GARDEN ROAD, PUNE-411 001
REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS
DIRECTORS.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANUBHAB SARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)
2

  THIS WRIT IS FILED UNDER [ARTICLES 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) AND [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED:12.02.2026 IN IA NO. 1/2025 PASSED BY THE XXXVIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
A.P.NO.54/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

  THIS    WRIT    PETITION,       HAVING    BEEN    HEARD   AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

                     CAV ORDER

1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is

challenging the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the

XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Section 36(2) and (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') in Arbitration Petition No.54/2024

vide Annexure-A.
3

1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is

operating a star hotel on a portion of the land more

fully described as Schedule 'A' property of the writ

petition. In 2006, a portion of Schedule 'A' property

more fully described as Schedule 'B' property was

leased to the petitioner by the erstwhile owner, one

M/s.Just Homes Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, in the year

2011, the scheduled properties were sold in favour of

the respondent. Hence, a Tripartite Agreement dated

26.10.2012 was executed between M/s.Just Homes

Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner and the respondent herein,

attorning the lease of schedule 'B' property in favour

of the petitioner. Initially, the said property was

leased for a period of 10 years commencing from

17.07.2006, with a condition providing for deemed

renewal for a further period of 10 years. Since the

respondent did not renew the lease period in terms of

the agreement, the petitioner initiated arbitration
4

proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.

No.51/2021. The Arbitral Tribunal, by award dated

10.09.2024 passed in A.C. No.51/2021, rejected the

relief of specific performance sought by the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner filed

Arbitration Petition No.54/2024 under Section 34 of

the Act before the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court').

Along with the said petition, the petitioner also filed

an application under Sections 36(2) and (3) of the Act

read with Section 151 of CPC seeking stay of the

operation of the award dated 10.09.2024 passed in

A.C. No.51/2021. By order dated 12.02.2026, the said

application came to be rejected vide Annexure-A.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this

Court.

1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner has raised the following contentions:
5

a) Firstly, it is contended that the Trial Court has

failed to exercise the discretionary power vested

under Section 36 of the Act. It is contended that the

petitioner had made out a prima facie case and the

balance of convenience also lies in favour of the

petitioner, yet the Trial Court committed an error in

rejecting the application.

b) Secondly, the specific case of the petitioner is

that the Arbitral Tribunal itself has recorded a finding

that the respondent committed breach of the lease

agreement, but nevertheless declined the relief of

specific performance sought by the petitioner for

renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years.

It is therefore contended that when the award itself

discloses a prima facie breach, the Trial Court ought to

have granted stay of the operation of the award.

c) Thirdly, the petitioner has raised a ground that

the award has been passed contrary to the agreement
6

between the parties. It is further submitted that the

Trial Court, without recording any finding as to

whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie

case or whether the balance of convenience lies in his

favour, dismissed the application only on the ground

that the petitioner had not paid the monthly rent as

directed under the award dated 10.09.2024. It is

contended that the petitioner had in fact paid certain

sums of rent until the date of filing of the petition

under Section 34 of the Act. It is further contended

that after the impugned award was passed, the

respondent locked the premises and obstructed the

petitioner from carrying on the hotel business in the

property in question, due to which the rent could not

be paid regularly. According to the learned senior

counsel, this aspect of the matter has not been

considered by the Trial Court.
7

d) Fourthly, the Trial Court has relied upon the

affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Arbitral

Tribunal wherein the petitioner had stated that

handing over and delivery of possession of the

property to the respondent had no nexus with the

monetary claims of the respondent. Learned senior

counsel submitted that the said undertaking was given

subject to certain conditions and since the respondent

did not accept the conditions therein, the petitioner

did not act upon the said undertaking. However, the

Trial Court has heavily relied upon the said affidavit

while rejecting the application.

e) Fifthly, it was also brought to the attention of the

Trial Court that the award itself records that the

respondent had breached the terms of the agreement

but nevertheless it proceeded to hold that the

respondent is not required to specifically perform the

contract. It is contended that though an issue was
8

framed regarding readiness and willingness, the

Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the said

aspect. It is also contended that the Tribunal has

failed to arrive at any finding with regard to the

differential amount payable to the respondent.

According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner

has established that the award is contrary to the

fundamental policy of Indian law and several findings

recorded therein are unsustainable.

f) Sixthly, it is further contended that non-grant of

stay of the award, as prayed for, would render the

petition filed under Section 34 of the Act infructuous

and leave the petitioner without an effective remedy.

Learned senior counsel submitted that a grave and

immediate threat of dispossession was brought to the

notice of the Trial Court. It was also contended that

the petitioner has suffered an unreasoned and

unsubstantiated award which, according to the
9

petitioner, is violative of the fundamental policy of

Indian law and patently illegal. In those

circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to

challenge the arbitral award dated 10.09.2024 before

the Trial Court. It was further contended that reliance

was placed on several judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in support of the prayer for grant of

stay under Section 36 of the Act, and that the

petitioner had demonstrated a prima facie case.

However, according to the learned senior counsel, the

Trial Court failed to consider the said submissions and

judgments, and the impugned order therefore suffers

from non-compliance with the provisions of the Act

and is liable to be set aside.

g) Seventhly, it is also contended that the Trial

Court has failed to apply its mind to the factual and

legal background of the case and that such failure has

caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned
10

senior counsel submitted that the impugned order

suffers from manifest error and reflects a failure to

exercise jurisdiction properly. It was further

contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the

gravity of the situation and the circumstances faced

by the petitioner on account of the respondent's

unilateral actions and the imminent threat of

dispossession from the hotel premises, which the

petitioner claims to be in lawful possession of. It is

therefore contended that the impugned order is

contrary to law and calls for interference by this

Court.

h) Lastly, it is further contended that if the

petitioner were to succeed in Arbitration Petition

No.54/2024 and the award dated 10.09.2024 were to

be set aside by the Trial Court, the petitioner would be

entitled to re-agitate its rights under the agreement in

terms of Section 34(4) of the Act. However, it was
11

submitted that if the operation of the award is not

stayed and the petitioner is compelled to hand over

possession of the hotel premises and dismantle the

fixtures, the petitioner would be put to immense

hardship. It was contended that during such period

the hotel would become entirely non-operational,

resulting in loss of business and revenue, thereby

causing irreparable injury to the petitioner and that

such irreparable loss would affect the rights of the

petitioner available under Section 34(4) of the Act.

1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, it is contended that the impugned order

passed by the Trial Court under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, more

particularly under Section 34 read with Section 36 of

the Act, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this
12

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

According to the learned counsel, the said order is

appealable under Section 37 of the Act, and therefore

the present writ petition is not maintainable.

b) Secondly, he contended that the petitioner has

already derived benefits under the arbitral award on

two occasions. It is submitted that the lease in

question admittedly expired on 15.01.2018, which is

evident from the petitioner's own pleadings before the

Arbitral Tribunal, the Trial Court, as well as in the

present writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that

under the arbitral award dated 10.09.2024 and

clarification order dated 16.12.2024, the petitioner

was permitted to continue its business operations in

the subject premises until vacant and peaceful

possession of the premises was handed over to the

respondent on or before 10.09.2025 in accordance

with the award passed. It is contended that the
13

petitioner has acted upon the said direction contained

in the arbitral award by continuing its business

operations in the premises and has also relied upon

the said direction on two distinct occasions without

seeking any stay of the award. Therefore, it is

contended that the award, insofar as it relates to the

petitioner's obligation to handover the possession of

the premises on 10.09.2025, has attained finality

under Section 35 of the Act and is enforceable under Section 36 of the Act.

c) Thirdly, it is contended that the respondent's

challenge to the arbitral award in

Com.A.P.No.36/2025 pertains only to the recovery of

arrears of rent and is distinct from the respondent's

right to recover possession of the premises, which has

already attained finality. It is submitted that, in the

petitioner's own words, the obligation to hand over

possession of the subject premises has no nexus with
14

the respondent's monetary claims which form the

subject matter of challenge in the proceedings before

the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, in

Com.A.P.No.36/2025. Learned counsel further

submitted that it has been consistently held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that a landlord's claim for

recovery of possession and a claim for arrears of rent

are separate and distinct causes of action. It is also

contended that the petitioner has admitted the said

position during the course of the arbitral proceedings.

In this regard, reliance is placed on the following

statement made by the petitioner in an application

filed before the Arbitral Tribunal:

  "09. I submit that the handing over and delivery
  of possession by us to the respondent has no
  nexus   with   the   monetary     demands    of    the
  respondent     against     us.   Assuming,   without
  admitting, that they are due, I state that such a
  claim or its adjudication will not come in the way
                        15

  of the respondent receiving possession of the
  schedule premises from the claimant.

d) Lastly, it is further contended that under the

terms of the Contract as well as the directions under

the Arbitral Award, the petitioner was required to pay

rent regularly. However, the petitioner has failed to

comply with this fundamental condition. Therefore,

according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not

entitled to any equitable relief. In support of the said

submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders

Private Limited reported in (2021) 4 SCC 602,

Navayuga Engineering Company v. Bangalore

Metro Rail Corporation Limited reported in 2021

SCC OnLine SC 469, and Kashi Math Samsthan

and Another v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha
16

Swamy and Another reported in (2010) 1 SCC

689.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties. Perused the writ papers.

1. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel

for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the

writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is concerned, the application filed by the

petitioner was under Section 36(2) and (3) of the Act.

An appeal under Section 37 of the Act is provided

against an order passed under Section 34 of the Act,

and that too in cases of setting aside or refusing to set

aside the arbitral award. Therefore, as against an

order passed under Section 36(2) and (3) of the Act, a

writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is maintainable.
17

1. The preliminary ground raised by the respondent

before the Trial Court is that the petition is not

maintainable before the said Court since the dispute

involved relates to a commercial dispute. In that

regard, the petitioner has filed

Misc.Petition.No.773/2025 under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure before the Prl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking transfer of all

pending proceedings to Court of competent authority.

In an earlier round of litigation before this Court in

W.P.No.28319/2025, this Court by order dated

17.09.2025 disposed of the writ petition with a

direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the pending

application for stay in Arbitration Petition No.54/2024

expeditiously, reserving liberty to the respondent to

contest the application on all grounds including

maintainability of the application. Accordingly, the

Trial Court framed point No.2 in that regard, which
18

reads as "Whether the respondent has made out a

ground to dismiss Arbitration Petition No.54/2024 as

the same is barred under Section 10(3) of the

Commercial Courts Act?". Since the Transfer Petition

has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, the Trial Court has not recorded any

finding on the said point.

1. Insofar as the point No.1 framed by the Trial

Court, namely, "Whether the applicant/petitioner has

made out a ground to stay the operation of the Award

dated 10.09.2024 passed in Arbitration Case

No.51/2021?", the Trial Court has answered the said

point in the negative on two grounds. The first ground

is that from 07.08.2024 to 29.08.2025, for nearly one

year, the petitioner has not made any payment of rent

to the respondent. In that regard, the specific

contention of the petitioner is that the respondent had

not allowed the petitioner to run the hotel business
19

smoothly in the premises thereby violating the Arbitral

Award and Clarification Order and further that the

premises were locked for some time. Due to the said

dispute, the rent was withheld by the petitioner for

some time. Thereafter, the rent for 12 months has

been paid. The Trial Court has not examined the said

contention while recording a finding that no rent has

been paid for nearly one year. The second ground is

that the petitioner had filed an affidavit in the

arbitration proceedings undertaking that he would

deliver the possession of the premises, subject to

certain conditions. The specific case of the petitioner is

that since the respondent has not accepted those

conditions, the petitioner has not acted upon the said

affidavit. The said affidavit was filed before the

Arbitral Tribunal and thereafter the award came to be

passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The very award has

been questioned before the Trial Court under Section
20 34 of the Act. This aspect of the matter has not been

considered by the Trial Court.

1. Trial Court has not examined whether the

contentions raised by the parties constitute bona fide

contentions and whether the petitioner has made out

any prima facie case, and on which side the balance of

convenience would lie in the event of success. The

Trial Court has also not considered whether there is

any merit in the case and whether there exists any

probability that the petitioner is entitled to relief and

whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of

the petitioner. The Trial Court has also not recorded

any finding as to whether the petitioner would suffer

any irreparable injury if the interim order is not

granted. The Trial Court has mechanically passed the

impugned order. Therefore, the matter requires to be

remanded back to the Trial Court to reconsider the

matter afresh in accordance with law.
21

1. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

                    ORDER a)   The writ petition is allowed.
   

b) The order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the
XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1/2025 in Arbitration
Petition No.54/2024 vide Annexure-A, is set
aside.

c) The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the
matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law on or before 30th April 2026,
without being influenced by any observations
made in this order.

d) Till then, parties are directed to maintain
status-quo.

e) Liberty is reserved to the parties to advance
the case before the trial court.

Sd/-

(H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE

DM