Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim measures — Scope
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must confine itself to interim protection and cannot grant relief in the nature of a final adjudication.
Paras 26, 42
Interim mandatory injunction — Grant — Principles
An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy to be granted lightly. It can be granted only when:
(i) circumstances are clear;
(ii) prima facie material establishes alteration of status quo; and
(iii) interests of justice demand restoration of status quo ante.
Paras 30–31, 47
Status quo — Meaning
“Status quo” in ordinary legal connotation means the existing state of affairs at a given point of time.
Paras 27–28
Status quo ante — Meaning and effect
“Status quo ante” means restoration of the state of affairs existing prior to the current state, and such an order necessarily disturbs the existing possession and operates as a mandatory injunction.
Paras 29–30
Status quo ante — Ad-interim stage — Restrictions
Orders directing maintenance of “status quo ante”:
• cannot be passed mechanically,
• cannot be passed without recording reasons, and
• must be supported by prima facie findings justifying restoration.
Paras 30–31, 47
Judicial orders — Reasons — Necessity
Reasons are the backbone of judicial orders.
A non-speaking order, or an order without justifiable reasons, cannot be sustained in law.
Paras 32–35
Reasons — “Life of law” — Doctrine
When the reason of a law ceases, the law itself generally ceases.
Recording of reasons ensures transparency, fairness, accountability and enables appellate scrutiny.
Paras 32–35
Administrative / judicial orders — Requirement of reasoned order
Even administrative or quasi-judicial orders must record reasons.
Judicial orders require an even higher standard of reasoning.
Paras 34–35
Orders — Validity — Reasons must be in the order itself
The validity of an order must be judged only on the reasons stated therein.
Reasons cannot be supplied later by affidavit or arguments.
(Mohinder Singh Gill principle)
Paras 39–40
Section 9 proceedings — Pending adjudication — Appellate restraint
When the main Section 9 application is pending, appellate court shall not enter into factual controversies which fall within the domain of the Special Judge.
Paras 26, 41–42
Lease dispute — Possession — Factual controversy
Whether possession was taken in accordance with lease conditions or statutory procedure is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be decided by the Section 9 Court and not for the first time in appeal.
Paras 36–43
Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 — Section 68
Questions regarding applicability of Section 68(1) or 68(3) of the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 involve factual determination and cannot justify an ad-interim mandatory order without prima facie findings.
Paras 36–43
Appeal under Commercial Courts Act — Maintainability
Appeal against an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable.
Para 24
Bank guarantee principles — Inapplicability
Judgments relating to restraint on invocation of bank guarantees do not govern cases involving ad-interim mandatory injunctions restoring possession.
Paras 48–49
FACTS (As recorded by the Court)
Paras 2–15
-
The respondents filed C.A.O.P. Nos. 37 & 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam.
-
The lease dated 02.02.2024 was granted by Visakhapatnam Port Authority for:
-
Kalvani A/c Auditorium
-
Nehru Sports and Cultural Complex
-
Lease period: 10 years.
-
-
Alleging violations of lease conditions:
-
show-cause notices were issued;
-
bank guarantee was invoked;
-
termination notice dated 10/11-09-2025 issued;
-
right of re-entry exercised.
-
-
Multiple writ proceedings were filed and disposed of, granting liberty to parties to pursue remedies under the lease deed.
-
Thereafter, Section 9 petitions were filed.
-
During pendency of the petitions, the Special Judge passed an ad-interim order dated 19-12-2025 directing:
“Parties shall maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of this petition.”
-
The said order was extended till 27-01-2026, when the Section 9 applications were posted for orders.
-
The ad-interim order dated 19-12-2025 was challenged in the present appeals.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
Para 22
Whether the ad-interim order dated 19-12-2025, directing maintenance of status quo ante, is legal and sustainable?
ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. Nature of the impugned order
Paras 25–26
The impugned order is:
-
an ad-interim direction,
-
passed pending Section 9 petitions,
-
directing restoration of possession by ordering status quo ante.
Such order is in substance a mandatory injunction.
2. Meaning of “status quo”
Paras 27–28
Relying on:
-
Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku
-
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar
the Court held:
“Status quo” means the existing state of affairs at the given point of time.
3. Meaning of “status quo ante”
Paras 29–30
Status quo ante means:
-
restoration of the previous state of affairs;
-
disturbance of existing possession;
-
exercise of mandatory jurisdiction.
4. Interim mandatory injunction — governing law
Paras 30–31
Relying on:
Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh
(2006) 3 SCC 312
the Court reiterated:
Interim mandatory injunction is granted only when circumstances are clear and justice demands restoration of earlier position.
5. Absence of reasons in the impugned order
Paras 32–33
The order dated 19-12-2025:
-
assigns no reasons;
-
records no prima facie findings;
-
does not explain why status quo ante was necessary.
6. Reasons — indispensable requirement
Paras 32–35
Relying on:
Assistant Commissioner v. Shukla & Brothers
(2010) 4 SCC 785
the Court held:
-
reasons are the life of law;
-
non-speaking orders are unsustainable;
-
recording of reasons is mandatory even at interim stage.
7. Reasons cannot be supplemented later
Paras 39–40
Applying:
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
(1978) 1 SCC 405
the Court held:
Validity of an order must be judged only by reasons recorded in the order itself.
Arguments of counsel cannot substitute judicial reasoning.
8. Lease violation and possession — factual dispute
Paras 36–43
The Court observed:
-
whether possession was taken under lease clauses;
-
whether Public Premises Act or Section 68 of Major Port Authorities Act applies;
-
whether re-entry was lawful,
are mixed questions of fact and law, requiring adjudication by the Section 9 Court.
Such issues cannot justify a blanket mandatory order without findings.
9. Undisputed factual position
Para 45
The Court recorded:
-
Possession was taken on 15-12-2025;
-
Respondent was not in possession on 19-12-2025;
-
Impugned order contains no reasons.
10. Distinction from bank guarantee cases
Paras 48–49
The judgment in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. v. Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 10 SCC 176 was held inapplicable because:
-
that case dealt with restraint on bank guarantee;
-
present case concerns mandatory restoration of possession.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Paras 47, 51–53
The High Court held:
-
The impugned order is an ad-interim mandatory injunction.
-
No reasons were recorded to justify restoration of status quo ante.
-
No prima facie findings were made.
-
The order violates settled principles governing interim mandatory relief.
FINAL ORDER
-
Impugned order dated 19-12-2025 is set aside.
-
Section 9 applications shall be decided by the Special Judge on the scheduled date, independently and in accordance with law.
-
Appeals allowed.
-
No order as to costs.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
An ad-interim order directing “status quo ante” amounts to an interim mandatory injunction.
-
Interim mandatory injunctions cannot be granted without clear reasons and prima facie findings.
-
“Status quo ante” restores possession and therefore cannot be ordered mechanically.
-
Reasons are the life of judicial orders; absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable.
-
Validity of a judicial order must be judged solely on reasons recorded in the order itself.
-
Factual disputes regarding possession and lease violations must be decided in Section 9 proceedings, not by ad-interim directions.
No comments:
Post a Comment