Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • PRAMIT SAXENA
  • SUKANYA LAL
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • PRAMIT SAXENA
  • SUKANYA LAL
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Popular Caterers v. Ameet Mehta & Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arises from Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 17231–17233 of 2025 filed by Popular Caterers against a common impugned final judgment and order dated 22 January 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in IA(L) No. 8589/2023, IA(L) No. 8941/2023, and IA(L) No. 7149/2024.

The dispute involves an arbitral award whose execution had been stayed. The respondents had filed Section 34 applications, and certain orders had been passed by the Bombay High Court which were challenged before the Supreme Court.

On 18 November 2025, the Supreme Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan) heard the parties. Leave was granted, converting the special leave petitions into appeals. The Court then disposed of the appeals in terms of a detailed reportable signed order on file, extracts of which are reproduced in the record of proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court records that it has reached the conclusion that the impugned common order of the Bombay High Court “deserves to be set aside.” The detailed reasoning for this conclusion is contained in a separate reportable signed order, which is not reproduced in full in the excerpt provided.

Based on that conclusion, the Court:

  • Holds that the appeals succeed and expressly sets aside the common impugned order of the High Court.
  • Directs the respondents to deposit the principal amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore only) with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, Original Side, Bombay High Court, within eight weeks from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.
  • Clarifies that the respondents’ Section 34 applications shall be heard by the High Court on their own merits, without being influenced in any manner by the Supreme Court’s decision to disturb and set aside the impugned High Court order.
  • Directs that upon deposit of the principal sum within the stipulated time, the Registry of the Bombay High Court shall invest the amount in a fixed deposit in an interest-bearing account with any nationalised bank, with an auto-renewal facility, initially for a period of six months.
  • In view of the nature of the dispute between the parties and the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case, requests the High Court to take up the Section 34 applications for final hearing and to dispose of them within six months from the date of the order.
  • States that the stay regarding execution of the arbitral award shall continue, subject to the respondents depositing the principal amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as directed.

The order also records that all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Beyond what is quoted, no further analytical reasoning is available in the provided text.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Leave is granted. The appeals are allowed and the common impugned order of the Bombay High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to deposit Rs. 4,00,00,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court within eight weeks. The amount, once deposited, is to be placed in a fixed deposit in an interest-bearing account with a nationalised bank, with auto-renewal initially for six months. The respondents’ Section 34 applications are to be heard by the High Court on their own merits, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s setting aside of the impugned order, and are to be disposed of within six months. The stay on execution of the arbitral award shall continue, conditional on the deposit of the principal sum. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Implications: The immediate effect is to nullify the Bombay High Court’s common impugned order and restore the position to one in which the Section 34 applications must be adjudicated afresh on their own merits, while protecting the amount in dispute by requiring a substantial deposit and investment under the supervision of the High Court’s Registry. The continuation of the stay on execution of the arbitral award, subject to deposit, balances the interests of the parties pending final adjudication. The order, as provided, does not articulate any broader legal principle or establish a new precedent beyond these case-specific directions.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    POPULAR CATERERS v. AMEET MEHTA

    ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX-A

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.17231-17233/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-01-2025 in IA(L) No. 8589/2023 22-01-2025 in IA(L) No. 8941/2023 22-01-2025 in IA(L) No. 7149/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]

    POPULAR CATERERS Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    AMEET MEHTA & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR ADMISSION and I.R. Date : 18-11-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, Adv.

    Mr. Pramit Saxena, AOR

    Ms. Priyanka Gharge, Adv.

    For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, AOR

    Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Adv.

    Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.

    Mr. Jijo Oomen Eappan, Adv.

    Mr. Yash Chaturvedi, Adv.

    Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv.

    Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR

    1

    Mr. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar, Adv. Mr. Sumit Chander, Adv. Mr. Nirav Jitesh Marjadi, Adv. Ms. Srushti Bakul Mehta, Adv. Ms. Rebha Jagdish Dogra, Adv. Mr. Kushal Babulal Harnesha, Adv. Ms. Pooja Zagde, Adv.

    Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR

    Mr. Mohit khubhchandani, Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nina Nariman, Adv. Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR Mr. Karl Tamboly, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Akash Tripathi, Adv.

    Mr. Saurabh Guha, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    1. Leave granted.

    2. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the reportable signed order, which is placed on the file.

    3. The relevant part of the order is as under:-

    "..We have reached the conclusion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside.

    30. In view of the aforesaid, these appeals succeed and the common impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.

    31. We direct the respondents to deposit the principal amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rs.Four crore only) with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, Original side,

    2

    Bombay High Court within a period of eight weeks from today.

    32. We clarify that the Section 34 applications preferred by the respondents shall be heard on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by the fact that we have thought fit to disturb the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

    33. Once the principal amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rs.Four crore only) is deposited within the stipulated period of time, the Registry of the High Court shall invest the same by way of a Fixed Deposit in an interest bearing account with any Nationalised Bank with auto renewal facility initially for a period of six months.

    34. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we request the High Court to take up the Section 34 applications for final hearing and see to it that those are disposed of within a period of six months from today.

    35. It is needless to clarify that the stay as regards execution of the Arbitral Award shall continue, subject to the deposit of the principal amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rs.Four crore only)."

    4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

    (CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)

    ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

    3

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    POPULAR CATERERS v. AMEET MEHTA
    (Nov 18, 2025)