VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant (hereafter HCIL) has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning a judgment dated 27.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(I)(COMM) No.67/2024 captioned Indus Towers Limited v. Hotel Corporation of India.

2. The respondent (hereafter ITL) had preferred the said petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, inter alia, praying that HCIL be restrained from interfering with ITL in dismantling its equipment on the licensed premises (roof of Centaur Hotel, near IGI Airport, Terminal III, New Delhi) and removing the same from the said premises.

3. Essentially, ITL sought that HCIL be restrained from obstructing or preventing ITL in any manner from removal of its movable assets (mainly mobile towers) that were located at HCIL’s premises. The parties had entered into three separate agreements in respect of installation of the respective equipment, servicing three telecom operators – Airtel, Vodafone, and Idea. The equipment /mobile towers were placed over the roof of HCIL’s premises, Centaur Hotel, near IGI Airport, Terminal-III, New Delhi (hereafter the said premises). In terms of the respective agreements, ITL had furnished the security deposits and also agreed to pay monthly license fees for use of the said premises. The agreement in respect of equipment servicing the telecom operator, Idea, is not the subject matter of ITL’s petition.

4. The agreements in respect of equipment installed to service Airtel and Vodafone expired on 20.11.2019 and 30.04.2020, respectively.

Notwithstanding that the said agreements had expired, ITL did not immediately remove its equipment from the said premises. It is HCIL’s case that ITL continued to occupy the given space on the roof top of the said premises and is, therefore, required to pay the license fee and damages.

HCIL claims that the total outstanding amount payable by ITL as on date exceeds the security deposits provided by ITL.

5. HCIL has annexed a computation statement indicating that the total amount payable by ITL is ₹3,81,52,853/- (Rupees Three Crore Eighty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three only). Out of aforesaid sum, ₹2,47,74,477/- (Rupees Two Crore Forty Seven Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Seven only) is claimed in respect of the agreement dated 18.10.2018 (in respect of equipment installed for Vodafone) and a sum of ₹1,22,53,655/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Five only) is payable in respect of agreement dated 20.09.2016 (in respect of equipment installed for Airtel).

6. The aforementioned sum of ₹3,81,52,853/- also includes the amount of ₹11,24,721/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty-four Thousand and Seven Hundred and Twenty One only) payable in respect of a third agreement dated 18.10.2018 (for servicing Idea) which is not a subject matter of the controversy in the present appeal as, admittedly, ITL has removed the equipment and paid the rental charges. However, according to HCIL, ITL is liable to pay late payment charges on the rental for the period from the year 2012 to 2020 as well as electricity charges quantified at ₹ 4,64,970/- (Rupees Four Lacs Sixty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy only).

It is contended on behalf of ITL that a security deposit of ₹36,72,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Lacs and Seventy-Two Thousand only) paid in respect of the said agreement has not been refunded and ITL reserves the right to make a claim in that regard. The dispute regarding the agreement dated 18.10.2018, as noted above, is not a subject matter of the controversy in the present appeal.

7. HCIL’s grievance, essentially, is that the dues payable by ITL in respect of the two agreements in question are not fully covered by the security deposits furnished by ITL. HCIL has averred in the present appeal that it wants