The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear an appeal filed by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited against an appellate court order in a long-running property dispute concerning the iconic Ambassador Hotel block at Sujan Singh Park in central Delhi, as reported by news agency ANI.
Court Proceedings
Justice Tejas Karia, serving as vacation judge, directed that records from the trial court and district court be placed before the high court. The matter is now listed before the roster bench on July 23, 2026. The company has also sought interim protection after the Union government issued an eviction notice on June 11, 2026, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, raising concerns about potential eviction proceedings.
Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Sudhir Nandrajog, appearing for Sir Sobha Singh & Sons, requested urgent relief while the company’s stay application remains pending. Representing the Union of India, Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit, along with Government Pleader Adhiraj Singh, Deputy L&DO Kunal Bhaskar, and advocates Aakash Tyagi and Nishant Bahuguna, opposed the request for immediate protection. The Centre argued that proceedings under the Public Premises Act are separate and independent from the appellate court judgment. However, the company noted that the eviction notice referenced the June 9, 2026 judgment and stated that the action was being taken in compliance with that order.
The court recorded the Centre’s assurance that proceedings under the Public Premises Act would be conducted independently and would not be influenced by the appellate court judgment. In light of this assurance, the court did not issue any interim order staying the appellate court’s decision at this stage.
Decades-Old Dispute
The dispute involves the northern block of Sujan Singh Park, where the Ambassador Hotel was constructed under a Government Grant and Agreement to Lease executed in 1945. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons has argued that the government was fully aware of the hotel’s construction and supported the project by approving building plans, supervising construction, providing scarce wartime construction materials, and granting formal approval in 1951. The company claims that despite supporting and benefiting from the Ambassador Hotel project for decades, the government later alleged that the building violated the terms of the grant and attempted re-entry into the property in 1960. According to the company, the government occupied flats in the complex, assured the hotel operator it would not interfere with hotel operations, and continued to benefit from the arrangement before later alleging misuse.
Company Challenges Appellate Ruling
The appeal follows nearly five decades of litigation. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons relies on a 2009 trial court decree that ruled in favor of the company on all 16 issues in the suit. The trial court found no misuse of the Ambassador Hotel property, stated that the government could not claim breach after approving construction, and determined that the re-entry action was not in accordance with the agreement. It also directed the government to execute the perpetual lease contemplated under the original grant. Challenging the appellate court’s order, the company argues that the court wrongly held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction while simultaneously examining the merits of the dispute and overturning the trial court decree. The company further contends that the Government Grants Act does not bar civil suits and alleges that the appellate court ignored key evidence and misinterpreted Supreme Court judgments.
Government Cannot Seek Forfeiture
Sir Sobha Singh & Sons also relies on principles of estoppel and unjust enrichment, arguing that the government cannot seek forfeiture under the grant while ignoring its own obligations under the same arrangement. The company has urged the High Court to restore the 2009 decree and set aside the appellate court judgment, claiming that the decision overlooked decades of government approvals and acceptance of the Ambassador Hotel project and wrongly upheld an extra-judicial re-entry into the property.
