Common Judgment: (Sanjay Kumar, J.)

1. Parties and the cause being the same, these two cases are amenable to disposal by way of this common order.

2. C.M.A.No.970 of 2016 arises out of the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter, ‘the Court below’), in Arbitration O.P.No.1669 of 2016, extended thereafter from time to time, i.e., on 01.09.2016, 07.09.2016, 14.09.2016, 19.09.2016 and 20.09.2016. C.M.A.No.987 of 2016 arises out of the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Court below in Arbitration O.P.No.2229 of 2016. The orders under appeal were passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1996’). Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), the respondent in the O.P.s, is the appellant in both appeals, filed under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. The respondent in these appeals, M/s. Hotel Malligi Pvt. Ltd., Bellary District, Karnataka, was granted a licence by the HMDA over the land admeasuring 2500 square metres situated adjacent to the IMAX theatre at Hyderabad (hereinafter, ‘the licensed premises’) for developing and operating any one or a combination of Restaurants, Food Courts, Indoor Entertainment Centre, etc. This licence agreement was executed by and between the parties on 01.08.2011 and was to come into effect 60 days thereafter, i.e., on 01.10.2011. The licence period was for five years which expired on 30.09.2016. It is an admitted fact that the respondent entered into an understanding with Paradise Food Court under agreement dated 28.01.2012 vis-à-vis the licensed premises and received amounts far in excess of what it paid to the HMDA.

3. While so, the HMDA issued notification dated 04.08.2016 in relation to the licensed premises inviting bids for grant of a licence to develop, operate and maintain a Food Court thereon. This led to the respondent filing Arbitration O.P.No.1669 of 2016 before the Court below under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking an injunction restraining the HMDA from taking further action pursuant to the tender notification dated 04.08.2016. By order dated 17.08.2016, the Court below opined that the respondent had invested huge amounts to start the Food Court in the licensed premises; had not committed any default in payment of the agreed licence fees; that the letter of the respondent seeking extension of the lease of the licensed premises and renewal of the licence was pending but the tender notification was issued on 04.08.2016 arbitrarily. The Court below accordingly held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondent and granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the HMDA from taking further action or going ahead with any proceeding pursuant to the notification dated 04.08.2016. This order was to remain operative till 01.09.2016 but was extended thereafter from time to time, the last such extension being on 20.09.2016. On the said day, the Court below concluded the hearing and reserved orders, while extending the interim order granted earlier till further orders. Admittedly, the Court below is yet to pronounce its final orders.

4. As the licence period under the agreement dated 01.08.2011 was to expire on 30.09.2016, it appears that the respondent apprehended a threat to its possession and filed a separate petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 in Arbitration O.P.No.2229 of 2016 before the Court below, wherein it sought an injunction restraining the HMDA from taking any further action, including its eviction from the licensed premises, till the disposal of the arbitration proceedings. By order dated 29.09.2016 passed therein, the Court below observed that the workers and employees of the HMDA had visited and tried to interfere with the possession of the licensee and threatened to get it vacated from the premises on 30.09.2016 and held that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. The Court below accordingly granted an ex parte a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document