Synopsis

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunction against the respondents from using the impugned marks “MOTI MAHAL” and “MOTI MAHAL DELUX”. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners had earlier filed a civil suit which was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh proceedings, and therefore the present petition was barred. The High Court rejected the objection, holding that the withdrawal of a civil suit does not bar initiation of arbitration proceedings when the parties have a valid arbitration agreement. The court noted that the franchise agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause. With the consent of the parties, the court appointed a sole arbitrator, directed that the Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 before the arbitral tribunal, and disposed of the petition.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 165/2026 (2026:DHC:3279)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 (interim measures by court), Section 17 (interim measures by arbitral tribunal); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23 Rule 1 (withdrawal of suit with liberty)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 (interim measures by court), Section 17 (interim measures by arbitral tribunal), Section 11 (appointment of arbitrator)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23 Rule 1 (withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit)

Key legal principles applied

Withdrawal of suit does not bar arbitration: Th

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.