IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4997 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

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)

THIS WRIT IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 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.

2. 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 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.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

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 leas