2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 24076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Thor Ventures (Opc) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nyeq Technologies Private Limited – Respondent
CNR No. DLHC010476932026
##PAGE1##
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 15.10.2026 Judgment delivered on: 28.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010476932026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 461/2026, I.A. 27471/2026, I.A. 27472/2026, I.A.
27473/2026, I.A. 28169/2026 & I.A. 28240/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010477292026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 462/2026, I.A. 27476/2026, I.A. 27477/2026, I.A.
27478/2026, I.A. 28153/2026 & I.A. 28154/2026 THOR VENTURES (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner versus NYEQ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Saurab Seth, Mr. Sukrit Seth, Mr. Thakur Ankit Singh, Ms. Liza Arora, Ms. Neelampreet Kaur, and Mr. Kabir Dev, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sahil Sethi, Mr. Kanishk Kumar, Mr. Samriddh Bindal and Mr. Priyansh Kohli, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
J U D G E M E N T
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
I.A. 27471/2026 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 461/2026 & I.A. 27476/2026 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 CPC) in O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 462/2026
##PAGE2##1. These are applications on behalf of the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking ad-interim protection with respect to properties bearing No. A-211, DLF City, Phase-I, DLF Qutub Enclave, Tehsil and District Gurugram, Haryana, admeasuring 420 sq. mtrs. (502.32 sq. yards) and No. B-7/4, DLF City, Phase-I, DLF Qutub Enclave, Tehsil and District Gurugram, Haryana, admeasuring 420 sq. mtrs. (502.32 sq. yards), which are subject matters of present petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioner and the respondent executed two Agreements to Sell (hereinafter referred to as “ATS”) with identical terms and conditions as follows:
(i) Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2019in relation to property bearing no. B-7/4, DLF city, Phase-l, DLF Qutub Enclave, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana;
(ii) Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2019 in relation to property bearing no. A-2/1, DLF city, Phase-l, DLF Qutub Enclave, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. The petitioner had paid Rs.5,00,000/- each towards a consideration of Rs.5,62,24,000/- of each property, thus paying a total of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the combined sale consideration of Rs.11,24,48,000/- during the signing of the two ATSs. Per Clause 3 of the ATSs, certain obligations were to be fulfilled by the respondent, such as boundary/fencing of the property, erection of name board, mutation of seller to be updated in the revenue records of DLF, No Dues Certificate/House Property Tax upto date, No Dues Certificate and NOC for sale of property from RWA/DLF/DLF Maintenance Agency.
##PAGE3##4. Pursuant to the respondent’s instructions, the petitioner paid Rs.92,031/- to DLF towards mutation & late construction charges and a further sum of Rs.7,093/- to DLF Estate Developers Ltd. towards maintenance charges for Property No. B-7/4. The petitioner further paid Rs.58,358/- to DLF towards mutation & late construction charges and Rs.7,093/- to DLF Estate Developers Ltd. towards maintenance charges for Property No. A-2/1. The mutation was effected in favour of the respondent on 09.09.2019 and 12.09.2019 for the B-7/4 and A-2/1 respectively, and the respondent handed over the original Endorsement Letter and Certified Zoning Plan dated 09.09.2019 for both properties to the petitioner.
5. However, allegedly, the respondent delayed fulfilment of its obligations under Clause 3 of the ATSs and further informed the petitioner that the original title documents were with the director of the respondent in Dubai.
6. The petitioner had got loans sanctioned for the balance consideration for each property from Pooja Finelease Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFL’) through two Loan Sanction Letters dated 07.07.2019. However, the respondent never came forward to exec