Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

(Oral)

By way of this petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a) That an Order restraining the Respondents from disturbing the possession of the Petitioner where the petitioner is running the school and the status quo may kindly be maintained with as it exists on regard to status and rights of the parties today, until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings may kindly be passed in the interest of justice.

b) Directions May kindly be issued granting the Petitioner a 3 period of 2 years from the date of this Order to vacate the property, remove its assets and hand over possession in accordance with Clause 14 of the Agreement Deed¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (P-3).

c) That an interim order be issued staying the eff.ect and operation of the termination notice dated 01.05.2024, issued by the respondent, until the arbitration proceedings are concluded. This will prevent any further execution or implementation of the termination decision which is in breach of the Agreement dated 20.11.2017 and Institutes of Technology Act, 1961.”

The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by Notice dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure P-13), which reads as under:-

“That, vide agreement dated 20.11.2017, you were permitted to run a school in the campus of IIT Mandi for education of children of IIT Mandi community (Faculty and staff members), surrounding Villages and people of Mandi town, regarding which a license deed dated 23.03.2019, was also prepared in between you and IIT Mandi.

That as per the conditions specified in aforesaid agreement and license deed, either party is at liberty to terminate this agreement and license deed by giving a notice at least two years in advance.

That IIT Mandi is not interested in taking your aforesaid services, as such, IIT Mandi hereby terminates this agreement and license deed.

You are therefore requested to vacate the school premises of IIT Mandi within a period of two years from the receipt of this notice, and hand over the same with all the articles which were handed over to you for functioning this school.”

On a query put to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as to why the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act close to the expiry of the period of two years, provided in Notice dated 01.05.2024, to vacate the premises, he submitted that although Annexure P-13 was passed as far back as on 01.05.2024, but the order was void ab initio, as the Registrar, in law, had no authority to pass this order, therefore, there was no need to challenge it. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the documents appended with the petition including the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Governors of the respondents (Annexure P-31), dated 08.04.2026 and 10.04.2026 in general and Clause 47.5.7 of the Minutes, under the Heading “Discussion of the continuity and future management of the Campus School” in particular and submitted that in fact perusal thereof would demonstrate that till the passing of the said Minutes, there was no legal taking over of the School by the respondents and it was only on this date, that a formal decision, if it can be so called, was taken by Board of Governors, to take over said School. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if it is to be assumed that whatever was done by the the Board of Governors is sustainable in law, then also, period of two years is to be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises from said date and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have had assailed Notice dated 01.05.2024 earlier. No other point was urged.

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Institute submitted that no case is made out by the petitioner for grant of interim. Learned Senior Couns