Triom Hospitality Vs J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.

M/s J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., owner of the registered trademark “Pind Balluchi” for restaurants, filed suit CS(COMM) 392/2024 against M/s Triom Hospitality for infringement and passing off after discovering the latter using the mark at a Dwarka outlet since October 2023; interim injunction was granted on 16.08.2024 restraining the defendant. The defendant filed Section 8 application under Arbitration Act invoking arbitration clause in an alleged MOU dated 22.06.2022 purportedly granting rights, but plaintiff denied execution alleging forgery and filed affidavit; trial court dismissed the application on 28.08.2024 holding prima facie non-existence due to forgery making dispute non-arbitrable requiring civil adjudication. On appeal, the Delhi High Court held that referral courts under Section 8 conduct only prima facie review of arbitration agreement's existence/validity without deep inquiry into forgery which is for arbitrator unless serious fraud vitiates the agreement entirely; noting pre-existing commercial ties and need for evidence, it found the dispute arbitrable even for non-signatory per group doctrine; setting aside the order on 24.11.2025, the court allowed referral to arbitration and dismissed the suit.

- Allegations of forgery/fabrication do not ipso facto render disputes non-arbitrable unless serious/complex fraud permeates the contract requiring public adjudication (A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386, Para 17-19).

- Under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, courts exercise prima facie review limited to formal validity/existence of arbitration agreement; substantive issues like forgery are for arbitral tribunal under Section 16 (Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1, Para 20).

- Non-signatories can be bound to arbitration if intent/consent inferred from conduct/relationship per group of companies doctrine (Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 327, Para 71).

Case Title: Triom Hospitality Vs J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.  

Order Date: 24 November 2025  

Case Number: FAO (COMM) 174/2024  

Neutral Citation: Not yet assigned  

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

Triom Hospitality Vs J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of case

In M/s Triom Hospitality v. M/s J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (FAO (COMM) 174/2024), the Delhi High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order refusing reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a trademark infringement suit over "Pind Balluchi" restaurant name, holding that serious forgery allegations on the MOU dated 22.06.2022 (containing arbitration clause) require substantive examination by arbitral tribunal under Section 16, not mini-trial at referral stage. The court emphasized pro-arbitration policy post-2015 amendments, limiting referral courts to prima facie formal validity (in writing per Section 7), distinguishing from substantive issues like signature denial needing evidence/experts, amid pre-existing commercial ties via prior partnerships. Suit dismissed as barred; parties directed to arbitrate, reinforcing kompetenz-kompetenz and minimal judicial interference.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Factual Background

Triom Hospitality, a family partnership firm (Sanjay Sharma 50%, sons/nephew 25% each, formed 12.12.2022), runs "Pind Balluchi" restaurant since 18.10.2023 at Dwarka, New Delhi. J.S. Hospitality, a company led by Jaspal Singh Chadha, claims proprietorship of "Pind Balluchi" trademark (Classes 16,29,30,32,43) with nationwide goodwill/awards, operating multiple Indian cuisine outlets. Prior dealings: 28.06.2021 partnership "Vatika Grand" (Sanjay Sharma, Arun Gupta, J.S. Hospitality); reconstituted 18.08.2022 post-J.S. exit (allegedly 31.07.2022). Disputed MOU (22.06.2022: Sanjay Sharma, Arun Gupta, J.S. via Chadha) allegedly grants Sanjay rights to "Pind Balluchi" in Dwarka, with arbitration clause; Chadha denies signing, alleges forgery. J.S. official spotted Dwarka outlet 18.07.2024, got invoice, filed CS(COMM) 392/2024 for injunction/passing off.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Procedural Detail

Suit filed; ex parte injunction granted 16.08.2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC restraining Triom's use. Triom applied 21.08.2024 under Section 8 Arbitration Act (with MOU copy, seeking original from J.S. per Clause 12 for "IPR registry") and Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. Commercial Court (Dwarka) dismissed Section 8 application 28.08.2024: prima facie MOU forged (Chadha affidavit, no company stamp unlike priors, inconsistencies in exit dates/references, police complaint 24.08.2024, no original), serious forgery needs forensic evidence (A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386; Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1); even if genuine, Triom not party. Triom appealed under Section 37(1)(a) Arbitration Act r/w Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act; reserved 11.08.2025, pronounced 24.11.2025.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Core Dispute

Whether Commercial Court correctly refused Section 8 reference amid forgery denial of MOU (arbitration clause), rendering dispute non-arbitrable needing civil court trial, or must refer for arbitral tribunal to decide existence/validity under Section 16 per kompetenz-kompetenz, given prima facie arguable case from pre-existing ties, no signature mandate under Section 7(3), and 2015 amendments limiting referral scrutiny to formal validity/ex facie frivolity.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning

Court scrutinized Section 37 (appealable orders: refusing Section 8 reference) and Section 8 (mandatory referral unless prima facie no valid agreement; original/certified copy needed, proviso for petition if held by other). Post-2015 amendments (Law Commission 246th Report), referral courts conduct limited prima facie review on existence/validity to filter "deadwood"/frivolous cases, upholding minimal intervention/kompetenz-kompetenz (Section 16: tribunal rules on jurisdiction).

Reaffirmed Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1: Sections 8/11 complementary; prima facie review includes validity (formal, per Section 7: in writing, no signature/stamp needed); default referral if "plainly arguable", facts contested, summary insufficient; no mini-trial (para 154.4); screen ex facie non-arbitrable. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754) interprets: filter meritless litigation; non-arbitrability (fraud etc.) prima facie reviewable but refer if arguable.

Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1: referral court prima facie existence only; deeper to tribunal (para 166, citing Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.). In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act 1996 and Indian Stamp Act 1899, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666: Section 5 limits substantive validity to tribunal; formal only at referral (para 81,154). Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra & Engg. Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 671: disputed signatures/forgery (CFSL inconclusive) to arbitrator for evidence/cross-exam (para 27); no conclusive finding.

K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1475: fraud allegations don't oust jurisdiction in civil/contractual disputes; court checks ouster, not own jurisdiction (paras 15-16). Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1815: no signature invalidates if intent via conduct/documents.

Commercial Court erred: conducted mini-trial (8 reasons: no stamp, inconsistencies, no original, police FIR etc.), beyond prima facie; forgery needs extensive evidence (handwriting/forensic, Sections 24-27 empower tribunal); pre-existing ties (partnerships) make arguable, not ex facie frivolous; Section 8(2) compliance (copy filed, exemption sought) triable; Triom non-signatory irrelevant (Cox and Kings group companies, intent via conduct). Distinguished A. Ayyasamy (serious/complex fraud to court) as pre-amendments; post-Vidya Drolia, refer unless certain non-arbitrable.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Decision

Impugned order set aside; Section 8 application allowed; parties referred to arbitration per MOU; CS(COMM) 392/2024 dismissed as barred; parties to constitute tribunal. No costs.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Concluding Note

Judgment fortifies arbitration as preferred for commercial disputes, even with forgery claims: referral courts gatekeep only "deadwood", leaving substantive probes (signatures, intent) to tribunals equipped for evidence/experts, aligning with party autonomy/minimal interference. Signals stricter scrutiny of mini-trials at Section 8 stage, boosting efficiency amid rising IP-hospitality suits.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Case Title: Triom Hospitality Vs J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.
Order date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 174/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:[Not specified in order]
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari ShankarTriom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested 5 Suitable Titles for this legal analytical article:

1. Forgery Allegations No Bar: Delhi High Court Mandates Arbitration Reference Despite MOU Signature Denial

2. Prima Facie or Mini-Trial? Kompetenz-Kompetenz Triumphs in Triom Hospitality v. J.S. Hospitality

3. Beyond Signatures: Formal Validity Threshold under Section 8 in Post-2015 Arbitration Jurisprudence

4. Deadwood Filtered: Setting Aside Refusal in "Pind Balluchi" Trademark Dispute for Tribunal Probe

5. Arbitration's Procrustean Bed: Limiting Referral Scrutiny to Ex Facie Frivolity in Forgery Claims

======

Delhi High Court Orders Arbitration in "Pind Balluchi" Trademark Row, Overrides Forgery Claims

New Delhi, November 24, 2025: In M/s Triom Hospitality through its Partner Mr. Sanjay Sharma v. M/s J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (FAO (COMM) 174/2024), the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, set aside the Commercial Court's refusal to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a suit alleging infringement of "Pind Balluchi" trademark.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

J.S. Hospitality sued Triom Hospitality for unauthorized use of its registered "Pind Balluchi" mark at a Dwarka restaurant, securing ex parte injunction on 16.08.2024. Triom invoked a disputed MOU dated 22.06.2022 (granting rights, arbitration clause), denied as forged by J.S. MD Jaspal Singh Chadha. Commercial Court (28.08.2024) refused reference citing prima facie non-existence (no stamp/signatures match priors, inconsistencies in partnership deeds, no original per Section 8(2), police FIR), deeming forgery serious needing forensic evidence (A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386; Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1); Triom not party.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

High Court held post-2015 amendments limit referral courts to prima facie formal validity (Section 7: in writing, no signature mandate; conduct/intent suffices per Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1); substantive forgery (signatures) for tribunal under Section 16 (kompetenz-kompetenz). No mini-trial: Commercial Court overstepped with 8-point analysis beyond ex facie frivolity (Vidya Drolia paras 147-148; SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754; Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra, (2021) 5 SCC 671). Pre-existing ties arguable; suit dismissed, parties directed to arbitrate.Triom-Hospitality-Vs-J-S-Hospitality-Services-Pvt-Ltd.pdf​

Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

=======