The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the powers of a Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 are wide and encompass such orders as are necessary to protect and preserve the subject matter of the arbitration, including issuing mandatory injunctions.

The Appellant had approached the High Court by filing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning an order of the Commercial Court, whereby the appellant was directed to immediately remove the mobile/cellular tower erected on top of the respondent’s property and to restore the licensed property to its original state. A sum of Rs 18,95,706 as an outstanding license fee was also ordered to be deposited.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held, “In the given facts, the contention that an order under Section 9 of the A&C Act could not be passed directing the appellant to remove the tower is unpersuasive. It is settled law that powers of a court under Section 9 of the A&C Act are wide and encompass such orders as are necessary to protect and preserve the subject matter of the arbitration, including issuing mandatory injunctions. The court must adopt a course, which is least likely to result injustice if the same is finally found to be wrong.”

Advocate Swetank Shantanu represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Anupam Srivastava represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), acting through its Karta, who had since expired, entered into a License Agreement for granting a license for an area of 800 sq. ft. on the roof of the respondent’s property (licenced property) to the appellant to erect a cellular tower. The term of the License Agreement was fifteen years and the appellant had also agreed that on termination of the Agreement, it would vacate the licensed property. The License Agreement included an arbitration clause, whereby the parties had agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration.

The appellant failed and neglected to pay the license fee and accordingly, the respondent terminated the License Agreement by a notice of termination. The respondent also initiated arbitration proceedings in respect of its claims, which included the license fee as well as the restoration of the licensed property to the condition in which it was originally licensed. The respondent filed an application under Section 9 for removal of the Tower. Aggrieved by the impugned order directing such removal, the appellant approached the High Court.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that the impugned order granted the final relief as sought for by the respondent, and the court could not grant any such relief in proceedings under Section 9. It was contended that the scope of Section 9 is confined to granting interim measures of protection, and no relief which has trappings of finality can be granted.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the licence to use the licensed property had expired and there was no cavil that the appellant was required to vacate the licensed premises and hand over the same to the respondent in the same condition as it was licensed to the appellant.

The Bench reiterated that mandatory injunctions can be issued under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Referring to various precedents, the Bench affirmed, “...the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the A&C Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the said Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts.”

Noticing that the appellant did not dispute that the appellant was obliged to remove the tower on termination of the licence and the respondent had also averred that non-removal of the tower was causing damage and harm to its property, the Bench said, “In these circumstances, the measure of protection required would entail mandatory injunction to remove the tower from the premises to ensure that the respondent does not continue to suffer any loss or damage.”

On the aspect of directions to deposit the arrears of license fee, the Bench held that there was no cavil that the same fell within the scope of Section 9 of the A&C Act, as it was to secure the respondent of his claim.

Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: M/S GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. S.C. Wadhwa and Sons (HUF) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1475-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Swetank Shantanu, Pratap Shanker, Ankit Kumar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Anupam Srivastava, Advocates Ujjwal Malhotra, Gaurav Arora, D. Gupta & V. Misra

Click here to read/download Order




Delhi High CourtJustice Vibhu BakhruJustice Tejas Karia

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.