The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, refusing to interfere with an arbitral order that denied interim relief seeking restoration of a terminated on-board catering licence. The Court reiterated the narrow scope of appellate interference with discretionary interim measures under Section 17 and held that reinstatement of a terminated, determinable contract at the interim stage would be impermissible and contrary to public interest.  

Issue of Law

Whether the High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could interfere with an arbitral order refusing interim relief under Section 17 that sought restoration of a terminated catering licence, particularly where the underlying contract was determinable in nature and termination was based on persistent service deficiencies and passenger complaints.  

Facts Referred

M/s R.K. Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. was awarded a licence by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) for construction and operation of base kitchens and provision of on-board catering services on specified trains, including the Purushottam Express, pursuant to a 2024 tender and Master Licence Agreement.

Following multiple passenger complaints relating to service quality, hygiene, over-charging and food standards, IRCTC issued show cause notices in April 2025, granted a personal hearing, and subsequently terminated the licence for the subject train by order dated 02.05.2025 under Clause 6.10 of the agreement.

The appellant unsuccessfully sought interim protection under Section 9 before the High Court, after which disputes were referred to arbitration. An application under Section 17 before the Sole Arbitrator seeking continuation of services pending arbitration was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2026, holding that interim restoration of a terminated contract was neither warranted nor in public interest. The present appeal challenged that order under Section 37(2)(b).  

Judgment

The Court held that interference under Section 37(2)(b) is warranted only where the arbitral order is perverse, patently illegal, or suffers from jurisdictional infirmity, and that mere disagreement with the arbitrator’s view is insufficient.

It found that the Arbitrator’s refusal to grant interim relief was a plausible and legally sustainable view, particularly in light of documented passenger complaints, prior warnings, and the determinable nature of the contract under Clause 6.10. The Court emphasised that interim reinstatement would amount to granting status quo ante relief barred by the Specific Relief Act, and that issues concerning the validity of termination must be adjudicated at the final stage of arbitration.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the merits of the arbitral proceedings. 

Access the official judgement/order here

Case Details

Case title: M/s R.K. Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited
Case number: ARB. A. (COMM.) 11/2026 with I.A. Nos. 1249/2026, 1250/2026 & 1251/2026
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Dates: Reserved 16.01.2026; Pronounced 19.01.2026