Delhi HC: Shri Sai Nath Enterprises' Appeal in Parking Site Dispute Denied

Summary: On December 24, 2025, the Delhi High Court turned down an appeal by M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) about a parking site disagreement. The case involved several parties and legal actions over many years.

The Beginning: Agreement and Dispute

In September 2014, M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises made a deal with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to run a parking site at Kabristan, Saket. The monthly fee was set at ₹9,02,000. Arguments started, and the matter was taken to a neutral decision-maker.

"If there's any disagreement... it will be taken to a single decision-maker..." — License Agreement Clause

Arbitration Rulings: November 2024 Decision

The neutral decision-making process, led by Justice S.P. Garg (Retd.), ended with a decision favoring the DDA on November 13, 2024. M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises was told to pay overdue amounts with a 10% yearly increase and other costs.

"The claims made by the claimant... are rejected." — Arbitration Decision

Transition to SDMC and Legal Challenges

On May 1, 2016, the site was handed over to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises stopped making payments, leading to legal actions. In February 2017, the court ordered M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises to pay what they owed or face consequences.

"Two weeks are given to the petitioner to pay all overdue amounts..." — Court Order, February 8, 2017

Further Legal Proceedings

M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises challenged the arbitration decision in OMP (COMM) 133/2025, with a hearing set for February 9, 2026. Meanwhile, SDMC filed a case in 2021 to get back the money owed, leading to more court orders.

"The appeal is therefore closed." — Court Order, February 22, 2017

Court's Final Decision: December 24, 2025

The High Court, with Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, turned down the appeal by M/S Shri Sai Nath Enterprises. The court pointed out that the arbitration agreement did not apply to SDMC, and the case by SDMC should continue.

"The current appeal is therefore turned down." — Court Decision

This case shows how complicated legal disagreements can be when multiple parties and changes in authority are involved. The decision highlights the importance of sticking to agreements and the possible legal issues that can arise from disagreements.