BIKRAM SINGH DHIMAN(Not Applicable) vs JASBIR KUKREJA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — OMP/309/2026
Case under Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act Section 12A. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010264842026
Filing Number
OMP/23060/2026
Filing Date
30-04-2026
Registration No
OMP/309/2026
Registration Date
04-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BIKRAM SINGH DHIMAN(Not Applicable)
Adv. Ajay Kumar Sharma
Respondent(s)
JASBIR KUKREJA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | ORDERS |
Orders
The court granted Bikram Singh Dhiman's exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, finding the case involved urgent interim relief. The lessee held a valid three-year lease agreement for Hotel Auckland (commencing August 2025) with monthly rent of Rs. 1,66,667, and the court found the lessor's April 2026 interference—including illegal occupation of two rooms and unlawful restraint—caused irreparable loss. The court issued interim orders restraining defendants from interfering with the hotel's possession and management, directing immediate vacation of occupied rooms, and prohibiting entry within 50 meters of the premises pending suit resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted Bikram Singh Dhiman's exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, finding the case involved urgent interim relief. The lessee held a valid three-year lease agreement for Hotel Auckland (commencing August 2025) with monthly rent of Rs. 1,66,667, and the court found the lessor's April 2026 interference—including illegal occupation of two rooms and unlawful restraint—caused irreparable loss. The court issued interim orders restraining defendants from interfering with the hotel's possession and management, directing immediate vacation of occupied rooms, and prohibiting entry within 50 meters of the premises pending suit resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts