Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

Mr. Bhanu Arora – Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Aditya Bhutani & Anr. – Respondents
O.M.P.(I) 20 of 2025, I.A. 27887 of 2025 (Stay), I.A. 814 of 2026 (For Delay 21 days in filing the Reply) & I.A. 10579/2026 (Seeking permission to bring on record the true copy of arbitral award dt. 03.02.2026)
Decided On : 20-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sachin Chopra and Ms. Astha Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shyamal Kumar and Ms. Apoorva Pal, Advocates.

A petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking interim protection is not maintainable if the underlying contractual rights have been extinguished by a binding arbitral award, or if the relief is sought against a party that is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Interim measures - Maintainability - When the underlying contractual rights forming the substratum of a claim have been adjudicated and rejected by an arbitral tribunal in proceedings between the original contracting parties, a petition seeking interim protection based on those derivative claims is not maintainable. (Paras 28, 30)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Non-signatory - A party who is not a signatory to an agreement containing an arbitration clause cannot be validly impleaded in proceedings, including those seeking interim measures of protection, as no arbitral obligation exists against them. (Paras 12, 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition for interim relief over a property interest flowing from an agreement with one party (the respondent), which was itself derivative of a primary collaboration agreement between the respondents. An arbitral award had previously been passed rejecting the claims of the respondent under the primary agreement, thereby negating the authority upon which the petitioner’s claim was based.

Findings of Court:
The court found that since the foundational rights of the petitioner’s source of authority had been extinguished by a binding arbitral award, the petition lacked a valid substratum. Furthermore, the court held that relief against a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement was impermissible.

Issues: The main issues were whether a petition for interim protection for derivative interests is maintainable after a binding arbitral award has negated the primary rights, and whether interim relief can be sought against a party not signatory to an arbitration agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction to grant interim measures cannot be exercised to revive or enforce rights that have been legally extinguished by an arbitral award, nor can it impose obligations on non-signatories who are not bound by the underlying arbitration agreement.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks interim property protection based on conflicting agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. determining maintainability of section 9 petition post-arbitral award. (Para 8 , 9)
3. parties contest the validity and sustainability of the petition. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. derivative rights extinguish if the parent agreement claim fails. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. dismissal of petition with liberty to pursue separate claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act], read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking ad-interim ex parte reliefs for preservation and protection of the subject matter of the arbitration, namely, the first floor of the property bearing No. E-135, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, [Subject property].

2. The Petitioner principally seeks an order directing maintenance of status quo with respect to the title, structure, nature, character, and possession of the aforesaid property, along with a restraint against any act or omission by any party that may result in alteration or change in the character of the said property.

3. The Petitioner further seeks restraint orders against the Respondents, their attorneys, agents, servants, employees, representatives, heirs, or any person acting on their behalf, from creating any third-party rights, interests, encumbrances, or alienations in respect of the first floor of the aforesaid property during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings.

4. At the outset, this Court takes note of the fact that despite service having been duly effected upon Respondent No. 1, and notwithstanding repeated opportunities having been granted for appearance and participation in the present proceedings, Respondent No. 1 has consciously chosen not to enter appearance before this Court. No explanation or justification has been furnished for such continued non-appearance. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no alternative but to proceed with the adjudication of the present Petition on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record, with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

5. The present Petition arises out of and is founded upon two distinct agreements executed between the parties. The first is a Collaboration Agreement dated 06.01.2023, [Collaboration Agreement] executed between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, governing their inter se rights and obligations in relation to the development and construction of the subject property.

6. It is pertinent to note that disputes subsequently arose between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 in relation to the said Collaboration Agreement, which were referred to arbitration. During the pendency of the present proceedings, an arbitral award dated 03.02.2026 came to be passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, whereby the claims raised by Respondent No. 1 were rejected and the counter-claims preferred by Respondent No. 2 came to be allowed.

7. The second agreement is an Agreement to sell dated 10.03.2023, [ATS] executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, pursuant to which the Petitioner claims to have acquired certain rights and interests in respect of the first floor of the subject property, which was proposed to be constructed pursuant to the aforesaid Collaboration Agreement entered into between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2.

8. At the very threshold, this Court considers it appropriate to observe that the limited issue presently arising for consideration is the sustainability and maintainability of the present Petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, particularly in light of the arbitral award dated 03.02.2026 passed in the disputes between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document