The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit seeking a perpetual injunction must qualify for protective reliefs under the relevant provisions of the law, and the plaintiff must establish fraudulent disposal of assets by the defendant to warrant such relief.

JUDGMENT

S C Gupte, J. - This appeal from order challenges an order passed by the Bombay Civil Civil Court at its Borivali Division in Dindoshi, Mumbai. The impugned order has been passed on a notice of motion taken out by the Appellant (original plaintiff) seeking a temporary restraint against Respondent No.1 (original defendant no.1) from creating third party rights in respect of assets or shareholding of defendant no.1. By the impugned order, the plaintiff''s notice of motion was dismissed by the trial court.

2. The plaintiff is an authority constituted under the provisions of Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 ("Act"). Whereas defendant no.1 is a company engaged in the business of hospitality, owning or operating various hotel properties in India, the other defendants are its shareholders and promoters. The plaintiff owns two pieces of land situate near Mumbai International Airport. These, respectively, admeasure 18000 sq. meters and 11000 sq. meters, and are adjacent to each other. By two separate lease deeds, the land admeasuring 18000 sq. meters was leased out by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 for the purpose of constructing a hotel. Defendant No.1 has, accordingly, constructed a hotel known as "The Leela" on this land. A part of the hotel building also extends upon the adjacent property owned by defendant no.1. On or about 7 February 1996, another lease was executed by the plaintiff in respect of the other land, namely, 11000 sq. meters of land. The purpose of this lease was to use the plot for setting up of a hotel comprising of 150 rooms. The period of lease was 30 years, i.e. from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 2014. It is an admitted position that defendant no.1 has not made any construction on this property as of this date. Entire FSI of this plot of land has, however, been used by defendant no.1 for carrying out additional construction on the existing hotel building on the plot of 18000 sq. meters, i.e. The Leela. (There is some dispute between the parties as to the exact FSI of 11000 sq. meters'' plot used up for this additional construction; it is, at any rate, submitted by the plaintiff that the entire plot of 11000 sq.meters is rendered incapable of development as of date, since its development potential has been fully exhausted.) Insofar as the plot of 11000 sq. meters is concerned, the relevant provision in the lease deed of 7 February 1996 (clause-2) required defendant no.1 to pay lease rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.200 per annum per sq. meter, subject to a 10 per cent compound escalation per annum. On the same date as the lease agreement, i.e. 7 February 1996, a separate supplemental agreement was executed between the parties, under which defendant no.1 agreed to pay to the plaintiff a minimum guaranteed amount (''MGA'') as specified in a schedule appended to the agreement, being Schedule ''A'' thereto. It is the plaintiff''s case that defendant no.1 failed to pay the rentals as well as the MGA, as agreed, with effect from 1 April 2008, though it continued and even today continues to use the demised premises for running the hotel business. (There is a dispute between the parties as to the date upto which the lease rent and MGA have been paid by defendant no.1. Whereas, it is the case of the plaintiff that lease rentals as well as MGA were paid only upto 31 March 2008, it is the case of defendant no.1 that they have paid rentals upto March 2017 and are not liable to pay any MGA.)

3. In these facts, the plaintiff proceeded to invoke the arbitration agreement contained in the first lease deed, i.e. the lease in respect of 18000 sq. meters of land. The reference resulted into passing of an award of 17 May 2008 in favour of the plaintiff. The sole arbitrator hearing the reference held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendant no.1 rentals as well as MGA for a period upto 31 March 2008. The arbitrator awarded Rs.37.80 crores towards MGA and Rs.4.53 crores on account of rentals for the per