The High Court of Delhi has issued an ad-interim injunction restraining NYEQ Technologies Private Limited from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights over two properties in Gurugram, Haryana. The directive comes following a petition filed by Thor Ventures (OPC) Private Limited, which seeks to preserve the assets while it challenges an adverse arbitral award in the same court. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted the protection after finding that the potential dissipation of these assets could render the petitioner’s legal challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, entirely nugatory.

The litigation concerns two Agreements to Sell executed on May 4, 2019, regarding properties in DLF City, Phase-I, Gurugram, collectively valued at over ₹11.24 crore. Thor Ventures had initially paid a deposit of ₹10 lakh—representing ₹5 lakh per property—but the transaction stalled after the parties engaged in a prolonged dispute over the execution of sale deeds. Thor Ventures invoked arbitration in 2021, and following a series of procedural developments, the appointed arbitrator issued a final award on September 26, 2026. While the arbitrator affirmed the validity of the agreements, he denied the claimant's request for specific performance, concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate financial readiness and willingness, primarily because he dismissed the supporting loan sanction letters from Pooja Finelease Limited as "sham documents."

In its appeal to the High Court, Thor Ventures argued that the arbitrator’s finding was perverse and lacked a basis in evidence. It submitted that it had never been confronted with allegations of fraud or fabrication during the cross-examination of its witnesses, yet the tribunal inexplicably branded the financial documents as fraudulent. The petitioner further contended that because it had sought only specific performance and not alternative monetary damages, the sale of the only two assets owned by NYEQ Technologies would strip the petitioner of any meaningful remedy if its Section 34 challenge were to succeed.

Addressing the High Threshold for Relief

The court’s decision is rooted in the refined legal framework surrounding post-award interim relief. While an unsuccessful party in arbitration can seek protection under Section 9, Justice Gedela emphasized that such applicants face a higher threshold for success compared to those seeking relief during the pendency of proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court of India's decision in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi , the court noted that such interventions should only be granted in "rare and compelling cases" to prevent irreversible prejudice.

Justice Gedela observed that the arbitrator’s finding regarding the loan sanction letters appeared to be based on no evidence, a factor critical to the court's prima facie assessment of perversity. The judge noted that the lender’s representative had testified under oath, and no specific questions had been posed to discredit the document’s origin or authenticity during the tribunal proceedings.

"That not having been done, this Court finds no evidence on basis whereof the conclusion was recorded in para 96 by the learned Arbitral Tribunal that the LSL is a sham document," the court stated.

Impact of the Specific Relief Act

The proceedings were significantly shaped by the 2018 amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which marked a paradigm shift in the enforcement of contractual obligations. By substituting the earlier version of Section 14(1)(a), the legislature signaled that the adequacy of monetary compensation is no longer a standard ground to refuse specific performance. This shift transforms specific performance from a largely discretionary equitable remedy into a more robust statutory expectation.

"The Amendment Act, 2018 introduces a paradigm shift in law regarding contractual enforcement in India," the court noted, reinforcing that the judicial priority is now on upholding the expectations of parties who have bargained for performance rather than mere damages. Because the petitioner is pursuing specific performance under this amended regime, the court found it necessary to ensure that the subject matter of the contract remains intact pending the final adjudication of the arbitration challenge.

Preservation of Assets and Judicial Efficacy

The court found that the "rare and compelling" criteria were met because the subject properties constitute the only assets held by the respondent. If these properties were alienated, any future success for the petitioner in its Section 34 challenge would yield only an empty victory. The court underscored that its role is to preserve the efficacy of the challenge proceedings, which would be undermined if the respondent were permitted to dispose of the assets in the interim.

"Another compelling and rare circumstance appears to be that of the respondent having no other properties/assets other than the two subject properties which, if not preserved, may render the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act redundant and infructuous ," the order observed.

By maintaining the status quo, the High Court has ensured that the properties remain available until the court can thoroughly examine the merits of the underlying challenge. The court has directed the respondent to file a formal reply to the petition within three weeks, with the petitioner granted an additional two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder. The matter is currently scheduled for further hearing on December 2, 2026, alongside other related arbitration petitions, where the parties will present deeper arguments regarding the validity of the arbitral findings and the final fate of the disputed Gurugram real estate assets.