ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v. DALJEET SINGH

── ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v. DALJEET SINGH ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MARKLE and HODGES, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules June 4, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0307, A26A0337. ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. v. SINGH et al. (same) A26A0416. SINGH et al v. ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. HODGES, Judge. These parties have been before this Court at least four times. Daljeet Singh and Raina Brothers, LLC (collectively “Singh”) and Ultra Group of Companies, Inc. (“Ultra”) are in the business of coin-operated amusement machines, which are often referred to as “COAMs.” Following a dispute between the parties over a settlement agreement and a decision by a hearing officer awarding Ultra with damages and attorney fees, both parties sought review by the Georgia Lottery Corporation (“GLC”) and, thereafter, the superior court. As relevant to this appeal, the superior court initially dismissed the parties’ petitions for review, and the parties appealed those dismissals in this Court. We vacated the superior court’s decisions and remanded the appeals because it was unclear from the trial court’s orders why the trial court dismissed the petitions.1 Singh et al. v. Ultra Group of Cos., 374 Ga. App. 22 (910 SE2d 834) (2024). Following remand, the trial court issued orders upholding the hearing officer’s award and the GLC’s affirmance of that award. These appeals followed, and we have consolidated them for our review since the appeals arise out of the same statutory proceeding before a hearing officer appointed by the GLC. In Case Numbers A26A0307 and A26A0337,2 Ultra argues that (i) the superior court’s affirmance was legally erroneous because Singh breached the settlement agreement, and (ii) the superior court’s failure to reverse a portion of the hearing officer’s final award denying Ultra its full contract damages was reversible error. In Case Number 1 Previously, Singh filed a direct appeal that this Court dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction, Singh v. Ultra Group of Cos., Case No. A22A1675 (Feb. 23, 2023), and Ultra filed a direct appeal that this Court affirmed in an unpublished opinion, Ultra Group of Cos. v. Singh, 351 Ga. App. XXII (Case No. A19A1261) (Sep. 3, 2019). 2 When the parties appealed to the superior court, the clerk of the superior court assigned different case numbers to the Ultra and Singh appeals. The trial court subsequently entered essentially identical orders in each case, and Ultra filed an appeal from the trial court’s orders in both underlying superior court cases. 2 A26A0416, Singh argues that (i) the superior court and the GLC erred by allowing the hearing officer’s analysis, findings, and conclusions to become the GLC’s final order through inaction because the final award is arbitrary and capricious, and (ii) the award of attorney fees to Ultra, as affirmed by the GLC and the superior court, is arbitrary, capricious, and clearly erroneous. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the appeal with direction in Case Numbers A26A0307 and A26A0337, and we affirm the superior court’s decision in A26A0416. We begin with the pertinent facts set forth in our prior opinion, which we will supplement as needed to address the issues in this appeal: The underlying facts are largely undisputed. Ultra is a GLC master license holder, and it contracts with businesses to place its COAMs3 inside stores or other commercial locations. Singh owns and operates 3 By statute, COAMs are defined as