$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 02.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 24.02.2026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 253/2024, I.A. 2555/2025 (Addl.Doc.) &

I.A. 4127/2025 (Early Hearing)

M/S WEDDING PARK HOSPITALITIES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mrs. Nishtha Agarwal and Ms.

Tamanna Bandyopadhyay, Advocates.

versus BALESH DEVI BHADANA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Mr.

Hargun Singh Kalra, Advocates.

Mr. Parth Sharma, Advocate for R-1 to 3 in CCP(O) 103/2024.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

CCP(O) 91/2024 (Contempt petition Under Sections 2, 10 & 12)

CCP(O) 103/2024 (Contempt petition Under Sections 2, 10 & 12)

CCP(O) 24/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 2A)

1. With the consent of the parties, these three Contempt Petitions were taken up for hearing together, and shall now be disposed of by way of this common Judgement.

Signature Not Verified

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in accordance with their respective ranks in O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 253/2024, unless the context otherwise requires.

3. The Contempt Petition, being CCP(O) 91/2024, has been instituted under Sections 2, 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt Act, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, CPC, by the Petitioner against the Respondents. By way of the said Petition, the Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings on the allegation of wilful disobedience of the Order dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court.

4. The second Contempt Petition, being CCP(O) 103/2024, has been filed under Sections 2, 10 and 12 of the Contempt Act, read with Section 151 of the CPC, by the Petitioner against Mr. Ankit Jain, Mr. Ankur Jain, Mr. Shubham Garg, Mr. Shyam Chawla, Mr. Tarun Lingwal, Ms. Dimple Singh and Mr. Pushkar Bhalani, Owners and agents of Jain Caterers and Décor. It is alleged therein that the said individuals have violated the status quo order passed by this Court vide Order dated 02.08.2024.

5. Whereas, the Contempt Petition, being CCP(O) 24/2025, has been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC by the Respondents against certain officials of the Petitioner. Through the said Petition, the Respondents seek, inter alia, initiation of contempt proceedings on the allegation that the Petitioner overreached the judicial process by wrongfully pressurizing the learned Local Commissioner to alter his Report.

Signature Not Verified BRIEF FACTS:

6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the present Contemp Petitions are as follows:

(a). The parties herein entered into a Lease Agreement dated

01.02.2017, Lease Agreement for the property land admeasuring 67 Kanal, 14 Marla bearing Mustil No. 19, Killa No. 16(0-10), 24(2-13). 25(6-16), Mustil No. 20, Killa no. 4(6-8), 6(8-0), 6(7-17), 7(6- 11), 13(0-9), 14(7-18), 15(6- 12), 18(6-0), Mustil No. 37, Killa no. 8/1(3-7), kita 16, business name as “Jannat Valley” situated at village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil Badhkal, District Faridabad, Subject Premises (b). Subsequently, certain disputes arose between the parties, as a result of which, it is stated, the Petitioner invoked arbitration vide Notice dated 18.07.2024. However, pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) No. 253/2024 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act seeking interim protection of possession, restraint against creation of third-party rights, and protection of its assets, business operations, brand name and goodwill.

(c). By order dated 02.08.2024, this Court granted interim relief including an order of status quo in respect of the subject premises, in favour of the Petitioner, inter alia, restraining the Respondents and all persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the Petitioner’s rights in respect of the subject Signature Not Verified premises, creating third‑p