IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No.29 of 2026 Decided on: 28.04.2026 P The Learning Curve Educational Trust … Petitioner Versus The Indian Institute of Technology … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, fJudge.

Whether approved for reporting?^{1 Yes} ____________________________________________________ _

For the petitioner: Mr. Ank ush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with tMr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mrs. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, filed under Section 9 of the Ahrbitration 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 Deed

1 Whether 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 wHill 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.”

2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by Notice dated

01.05.2024 (Annexure P-13), twhich reads as under:-

“That, vide agreement dated 20.11.2017, you were permitted to run a school in the campus of IIT Mandi for edoucation 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 hMandi.

That as per the conditions specified in aforesaid agreement and license deed, either party is at liberty to i 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.”

3. 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 althouHgh 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 aptpended 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 partic ular 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