2026 INSC 32 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

[ ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 30212 OF 2024 ]

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.189 OF 2025

REGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE

LIMITED … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT

AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant Civil Appeal assails the Judgment

dated 14.11.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (“High Court”), whereby it dismissed

Signature Not Verified

NAVEEN D

Date: 2026.01.07

Reason:

(AA) filed by the Appellant herein against the Order dated 01.10.2024 of the IXth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (“Trial Court”) in I.A. Nos. 5 to 7 in AA No. 4 of 2024 which has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC 1908”) and Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) read with Rule 9 of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”). The Trial Court vide Order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the application seeking temporary injunction restraining Respondent No.2.

3. The Appellant herein is Regenta Hotels Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in carrying business, inter alia, of operating hotels and providing hospitality services in India and abroad. The Respondent No. 1 is M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point, a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. Respondents No.2 to 5 are brothers and partners of Respondent No.1 vide partnership agreement entered on 01.04.2012, with each brother having 25% share in the partnership. Respondent No.1 is owner of a hotel premises located near Hatrick Restaurant, Raj Bagh, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir (“Hotel”).

4. The abovementioned parties i.e., the Appellant and Respondent No.1 entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 23.03.2019. The terms of the agreement were such that the Appellant would aid and facilitate the business of Respondent No.1 by contributing through its brand reputation, technical know-how, training and expertise in running premium quality hotel businesses. In furtherance thereto, the management and operations of Respondent No.1 were being carried out as per the said agreement.

5. Interregnum, the Respondents No. 2 to 5 were involved in a family dispute over rights on properties resulting into a settlement deed dated 20.04.2022 providing that Respondent No. 5 will be responsible for operations of the Hotel for a period of two years and after the expiry of said period, the Hotel operation shall be conducted by such party who shall be nominated by the parties by voting. Profits of the Hotel were decided to be shared by Respondent No. 2 in the ratio of 25% and Respondent No. 5 in the ratio of 33.50% as also to include every month consideration for his responsibility to operate the Hotel. The remaining share was to be divided among Respondent No. 3 and 4 in the ratio of 21.50%

and 20% respectively.

6. As transpires from the material on record, it is alleged that Respondent No.2 started to interfere in the functioning of the Hotel by shouting at staff and threatening to cancel bookings and taking away the records if not paid exorbitant sums separately over and above the agreed amount under the Franchise Agreement dated 23.03.2019. As a consequence to the alleged conduct of Respondent No. 2, the Appellant on 16.02.2024 approached the Trial Court by way of an application under Section 9 of the Act being AA No.4 of 2024 seeking various injunctive reliefs to restrain the Respondent No.2 from interfering with the smooth functioning of the Hotel claiming that Clause 5.1 of the Franchise Agreement stipulates that Respondent No.1 will maintain a high moral and ethical standard and atmosphere at the Hotel premises. The Appellant also filed three applications being IA No.5 to 7 seeking interim reliefs to restrain Respondent No.2 from