A contract terminable only for specified breaches subject to a notice and cure period is not inherently determinable under the Specific Relief Act, but a party in persistent material breach cannot be granted equitable interim relief as they fail to satisfy the necessary triple test.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’], seeking following reliefs:

“(a) Pass an ad interim order staying the operation, implementation, and effect of the termination notice dated 2nd March 2026 issued by the Respondent; and

(b) restrain the Respondent, its officers, agents, servants, and all persons acting on its behalf from dispossessing the Petitioner from the licensed bare/commercial spaces at Lajpat Nagar, Shahdara, and Govindpuri Metro Stations; and

(c) restrain the Respondent from disconnecting and/or direct the Respondent to continue/restore all utility and allied services, including electricity, water, access, ingress and egress, and other operational facilities in respect of licensed bare/commercial spaces at Lajpat Nagar, Shahdara, and Govindpuri Metro Stations; and

(d) restrain the Respondent from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s carrying on commercial activities under the License Agreement pending constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and adjudication of the disputes; and

(e) restrain the Respondent from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee and/or appropriating the security deposit, except with leave of this Hon’ble Court or subject to further orders of the learned Arbitral Tribunal; and/or

(f) Pass such other and further order/ direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and is engaged in the business of acquisition and trade of all forms of movable and immovable property, along with leasing and renting of assets ranging from real estate to industrial equipment and vehicles. The respondent is a public sector undertaking registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with the primary objective of planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the metro rail system in the NCT of Delhi and adjoining areas.

3. The case set out in the petition is that the petitioner, through a consortium, had submitted a proposal to the respondent for the lease of commercial bare spaces at selected metro stations under the respondent’s new initiative policy. The said proposal was accepted by the respondent vide its letter dated 21.07.2023. Pursuant thereto, the parties entered into a License Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) which got executed and registered on 14.08.2024 at New Delhi, for the licensing of bare spaces for commercial utilization at the Lajpat Nagar, Shahdara, and Govindpuri Metro Stations of the respondent.

4. The said bare spaces were handed over to the petitioner on an “as is where is” basis. The petitioner, being the licensee, was required to develop the necessary infrastructure to make the spaces fit for commercial use, and thereafter to operate and maintain the said spaces at its own cost. After developing the said premises at its own cost, the petitioner sub-licens