Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, G. Radha Rani, JJ.
M/s. Impressions Advertising Agency – Petitioner
Versus
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority HMDA – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.57 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2022
Arbitration - Interim Measures - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 (ii) (b), (c) (e) - 32 - The court dismissed the petition seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, holding that there was no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner as the lease agreement had expired and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for loss in an appropriate forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought temporary injunction against the respondents to restrain them from interfering with the maintenance of the Lake View Park, pending constitution of Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner invested huge amounts for maintenance of the park and sustained losses due to various actions of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner as the lease agreement had expired. The court directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for loss if any caused to him in an appropriate forum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the expiration of the lease agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of an arbitration clause in the lease agreement, and the petitioner's failure to raise any dispute for arbitration as required under the Act, rendered the petition seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Act unsustainable.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek appropriate remedy for loss if any caused to him in an appropriate forum.
JUDGMENT :
G. Radha Rani, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in Arbitration OP No.88 of 2019 by the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking interim measures under Section 9 (ii) (b), (c) (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The petition was filed seeking temporary injunction against the respondents and its officials claiming through them, restraining from interfering, dispossessing, causing obstruction in any way whatsoever in the maintenance of the Lake View Park, pending constitution of Arbitral Tribunal and to restrain the respondents from entering into any contract or agencies with third parties. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was a well reputed and well known advertising company in the field of advertising and maintenance of parks etc. The respondent issued a tender notice dated 14.02.2009 for providing LED based lighting solutions and their maintenance, providing water effects like fountains, cascades, their maintenance and amenities for citizens in the settling ponds, park in Khairtabad on DBOT basis. The petitioner was the highest bidder for development of the Lakeview Park in Khairtabad opposite I-Max theatre over an area of Acs.17.5 gts., of land. An agreement was executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner on 01.09.2009 styling as “Design, Build, operate and transfer” (DBOT) for a period of 10 years commencing from 01.09.2009. The petitioner invested huge amounts for maintenance of the park. The respondent failed to disclose that by the date of entering into agreement, they had already entered into an agreement with M/s.Ramesh Ads, Advertising Agency, for erecting mini uni poles in the park for a period of three years with effect from 01.08.2009 to 31.07.2012. The petitioner approached the respondent for removal of the advertisement boards put up by Ramesh Ads by way of an application dated 03.11.2010 stating that he was sustaining loss @ Rs.6,50,000/- per month. He also gave another representation dated 24.12.2010. Thereafter, the respondent issued a final notice on 12.01.2011 to Ramesh Ads for removal of the hoardings. When the petitioner brought the same to the knowledge of the respondent, the respondent assured that they would consider the loss by extending the period of agreement. On such assurance given by the respondent, the petitioner continued the maintenance of the Lake View Park. After beautification of the park by the petitioner, the officials of the GHMC had demolished the compound wall which was constructed by the petitioner for laying of pipelines. The Executive Engineer of the respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner on 09.12.2014 expressing inconvenience caused during the course of laying of pipelines. The respondent and the officials of the respondent had dug huge pits and trench in the middle of the park and also damaged the walking strips laid by the petitioner. When the same was brought to the notice of the respondent, the respondent regretted for inconvenience. In view of the acts done by the respondent from time to time, the petitioner sustained huge loss. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent on 02.11.2016 expressing the difficulties faced by him in maintenance of the park and the loss sustained by him. The Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed a plan to set up a memorial in the name of late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy in the Lakeview Park and also gave contract for the proposed construction to the Agencies. During the said relevant period also the petitioner sustained huge loss in business. Time and again, the officials of GHMC caused loss to the petitioner. The petitioner invested crores of rupees for the maintenance of the Lakeview Park. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 cror
An arbitration clause cannot override statutory provisions which assign exclusive jurisdiction to an Estate Officer for eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act.
Arbitration clauses may survive contract expiration if parties show conduct indicative of ongoing agreement; proper prerequisites for injunction must be adhered to for issuing orders under the Arbitr....
The judgment establishes the requirement of a written agreement for arbitration, the interpretation of settlement of disputes clauses, and the significance of party conduct in determining the existen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a stipulation to be considered an arbitration agreement under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must fulfill the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the arbitration clauses in the agreements and the application of Section 8 of the arbitration act to refer the disput....
An agreement to constitute an Arbitration Agreement must involve the Arbitral Tribunal determining the rights of the parties in an impartial and judicial manner, with an equal obligation of fairness ....
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act and the primary role of the arbitrator in interpreting contract terms.
The court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to determining the existence of an agreement with an arbitration clause and the presence of arbitral disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
