$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 20.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 03.12.2025 + FAO (OS) 317/2017 and CM APPL. 45899/2017 M/S KAPOOR TENT & CATERERS THR. ITS PARTNER, SH. VIPIN KAPOOR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. Ankur Katyal, Mr. Harshil Gupta and Mr.

Taarush Bajaj, Advs.

versus DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Prakash Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Ms.Tanya Chanda and Ms. Ishika Rawat, Advocates with Mr. Kapil Chaturvedi (Assistant Legal Manager) CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant [Petitioner before the learned Single Judge] assails the correctness of Judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. No. 430/2015, whereby the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „AC Act‟] filed by the Appellant, challenging the Arbitral Award dated 20.04.2015 came to be dismissed.

2. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the Arbitral Award dated 20.04.2015, and in holding that none of the grounds urged by the Appellant fell within the limited scope of interference permissible under Section 34 of the AC Act, thereby warranting no judicial intervention.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present Appeal, are as follows. The Appellant, M/s Kapoor Tent & Caterers was the licensee engaged in operating specified facilities within the Azad Hind Gram Tourist Complex situated on NH-10, Rohtak Road, Delhi. The Respondent, Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. [D.T.T.D.C], is a public sector undertaking of the Government of NCT of Delhi and was the licensor in respect of the said premises.

4. The Appellant entered into a License Agreement dated 01.10.2004 with the Respondent for running a restaurant, three kiosks, a conference-cum-banquet hall for organising conferences and parties, and an open green area for temporary wedding pandals at Azad Hind Gram Tourist Complex, NH-10, Rohtak Road, Delhi. The License was granted for a period of ten years (5+5), with the Appellant being responsible for maintaining horticulture and upkeep of the premises.

5. The land in question had earlier been allotted on lease to the Respondent by the competent authority: a communication dated 27.12.1996 records allotment/lease of the Gaon Sabha land of Village Tikri Kalan to D.T.T.D.C. on a long-term basis, with conditions restricting use and permitting the lessor to cancel the lease in specified circumstances. The Appellant later contended in these proceedings that the License Agreement dated 01.10.2004 was in conflict with the terms of the said lease deed and was therefore void or unenforceable; the Respondent, however, maintained that the License Agreement was validly executed and binding inter se the parties.

6. On 28.05.2009, prior to the expiry of the License Agreement on 14.09.2009, the Appellant requested the Respondent to extend the License for a further period of five years. By a letter dated 07.10.2009, the Respondent extended the License only for three months beyond 14.09.2009. The Appellant, however, continued to deposit the License fee till 2011, relying on verbal assurances from the Respondent that the License would be extended. Thereafter, by a letter dated

27.04.2010, the Respondent purported to terminate the License.

7. The Appellant filed a suit seeking a Mandatory Injunction. During the proceedings, the Respondent invoked Clause 53 of the License Agreement, which provided for arbitration, and filed an application under Section 8 of the AC Act. By an order dated

13.04.2011, the civil court referred the disputes to arbitration.

8. In the arbitral proceedi