Written By: Apoorv Agarwal
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Exclusive Capital Ltd. & Ors. | FAO (OS) (COMM) 31/2026 | March 16, 2026
The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar, dismissed an appeal filed by Asian Hotels (North) Limited (“AHNL”), the owner of Hotel Hyatt Regency, New Delhi, refusing to interfere with an ad-interim order that directed the hotel’s title deeds to remain in the custody of DBS Bank India Limited, acting as security trustee.
The dispute has its roots in a series of loan assignments. AHNL had originally availed loan facilities from a consortium of banks, which were later restructured under the RBI’s COVID-era framework. IndusInd Bank subsequently assigned its debt exposure of approximately ₹126.83 crores against AHNL to Exclusive Capital Limited (“ECL“). To partly fund this acquisition, ECL borrowed ₹60 crores from Clover Media Private Limited.
The situation became contentious when Clover Media invoked the Inter-Corporate Loan (“ICL”) Agreement to assert rights over the underlying AHNL debt and then assigned those rights to VSJ Investments Private Limited. This triggered a dispute over who legitimately controls the security interests attached to the AHNL debt most critically, the title deeds to the hotel property, valued at approximately ₹1,500 crores.
ECL responded by filing a commercial suit seeking a declaration that both the ICL Agreement with Clover Media and the subsequent assignment to VSJ Investments are void. ECL also sought injunctions preventing any of the defendants, including AHNL, from claiming rights under these agreements, and restraining DBS Bank from handing over the title deeds to AHNL or any entity claiming under the disputed agreements.
When the suit came up for admission in January 2026, the learned Single Judge directed DBS Bank to continue holding the title deeds as an interim measure a position that was already the existing arrangement. AHNL challenged this order before the Division Bench, arguing that as the owner of the property, it was entitled to have the title deeds returned. AHNL further contended that the order was non-speaking,violated procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, and that no subsisting charge existed over the property. AHNL even offered to deposit ₹149 crores the alleged maximum outstanding liability with the Court.
The Division Bench was unpersuaded. It held that the interim order did nothing more than preserve the status quo, since the title deeds were already with DBS Bank before the order was passed. The Court observed that AHNL had “projected its problem out of proportion.” It further clarified that as a defendant, AHNL could not seek return of the title deeds without filing a counterclaim, and that directing a handover at this stage would effectively amount to granting final relief something impermissible at the ad-interim stage. The challenge to the order being non-speaking was also rejected, with the Court noting that detailed reasoning is not required when the Court is only seized of the plaint.
The judgment reinforces the narrow scope of appellate interference with ad-interim orders. Intervention is warranted only where there is patent illegality, absence of jurisdiction, irreparable harm, or a genuine risk of the proceedings being rendered infructuous. Disproportionate asset value or mere inconvenience does not meet this threshold.
