Power To Issue Interim Orders U/S 9 Of A&C Act Not Confined Solely To Orders Which Can Be Passed Under O.39 R.1 & 2: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts. Brief Facts of the case: The dispute arose with respect to a mobile / cellular tower erected on top of the respondent's property. The parties entered into a License Agreement for granting a license for an area of 800 sq. ft. on the roof of the respondent's property to the appellant for the purpose of erecting a cellular tower. Due to certain problem, the respondent terminated the License Agreement and also initiated arbitration proceedings for claiming the license fee as well as restoration of the licensed property to the condition in which it was originally licensed. Then, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to immediately remove the Mobile/Cellular Tower erected by the appellant on top of the respondent's property. The Commercial Court directed the appellant to immediately remove the mobile / cellular tower and aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court. Observation of the Court: The court observed that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the 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 Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts. Further, the court noted that the appellant does not dispute that the appellant is obliged to remove the tower on termination of the licence. The respondent has also averred that non-removal of the tower is causing damage and harm to its property. 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. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal. Case Title: M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371 Case Number: FAO (COMM) 68/2025 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Swetank Shantanu, Mr. Pratap Shanker & Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ujjwal Malhotra, Mr. Gaurav Arora, Mr. D. Gupta & Mr. V. Misra, Advs. Date of Judgment: 06.03.2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Power To Issue Interim Orders U/S 9 Of A&C Act Not Confined Solely To Orders Which Can Be Passed Under O.39 R.1 & 2: Delhi HC

Soumya Chakrabarti

Tags