When new management knocks mid-contract: Lessons from the RULO Pickleball dispute

In a significant interim order passed on March 30, 2026, the district judge, New Delhi, granted an ad-interim injunction protecting the operator of RULO Pickleball and Padel, Panchshila Club, Delhi's most celebrated racquet sports destination — from being summarily evicted mid-way through a contractually protected lock-in period, just 48 hours before the defendant's self-imposed deadline to shut operations would have taken effect.

The case, Sumer Sethi Sole Proprietorship vs. Panchshila Co-Operative House Building Society Limited (CS COMM 166/26), offers a pointed reminder of how internal governance changes within cooperative societies can collide with existing commercial agreements, and why courts have consistently treated such collisions with caution.

In April 2024, Sumer Sethi Sole Proprietorship entered into a Service Agreement with Panchshila Co-Operative House Building Society Limited for the management, operation, and development of the Racquet Arena housed within the Panchshila Club premises - the facility that would become RULO Pickleball and Padel, reimagined and converted from a traditional cooperative club into one of Delhi's most prominent and beloved racquet sports destinations.

The agreement was structured for nine years, with a clearly negotiated five-year lock-in period that exists precisely to give an operator the commercial certainty needed to justify upfront investment. And invest the plaintiff did. Substantial sums were poured into the maintenance, development, and promotion of RULO, transforming the facility into the thriving, professionally-run racquet club that Delhiites have come to recognise and frequent.

Contracts, unfortunately, do not change hands as cleanly as elections do.

Following the execution of the agreement, internal elections within the cooperative society brought a new executive body into power. This new management, unburdened by any apparent appreciation of the existing contractual obligations — or indeed the goodwill that RULO Pickleball and Padel had built within Delhi's sporting community — began pushing for the termination of the Service Agreement, notwithstanding that the parties were firmly within the lock-in period.

The dispute crystallised when the defendant issued emails on March 16, 2026 and March 26, 2026, categorically stating that no activities would be permitted at the premises from April 1, 2026. With less than a week to go before operations at RULO would be forcibly halted, the plaintiff had little choice but to approach the court.

This is precisely the question the commercial court was confronted with and its interim answer was an emphatic no.

The plaintiff filed a fresh suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, alongside an urgent application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, CPC, and simultaneously sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, citing the urgency of the situation.

The court, upon hearing counsel and examining the plaint, acknowledged the time-sensitive nature of the matter and granted the Section 12A exemption. On the substantive prayer, it applied the well-established three-pronged test - prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm - and found all three decisively in favour of the plaintiff.

The reasoning was straightforward: the plaintiff had invested heavily in building RULO into what it is today, in contractual reliance on the lock-in period; the defendant's emails, if given effect, would cause immediate and irreversible harm; and the balance of inconvenience clearly tilted against allowing eviction at this stage.

The court accordingly restrained the defendant along with its office bearers, agents, representatives, and employees from acting upon the impugned emails, disturbing the plaintiff's possession, forcibly dispossessing the operator, or preventing its staff, customers, and invitees from accessing and using RULO Pickleball and Padel, Panchshila Club. The plaintiff's exclusive operational management of the facility stands protected until the next date of hearing.

Courts have consistently held that contractual certainty, particularly where substantial investment has been made, cannot be casually overridden by internal changes in management. The Panchshila matter reaffirms that principle and serves as a clear warning to cooperative bodies that governance transitions do not dissolve contractual obligations. For the members and patrons of RULO Pickleball and Padel, Delhi's most famous pickleball club, the courts have ensured at least for now that the game goes on.

About the authors: Varun Singh is the Founder and Managing Partner of Foresight Law Offices India. Shikher Upadhyay is a Senior Associate at the Firm.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.