High Court of Bombay Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Warehousing Agreement Dispute — Licensee Not Entitled to Specific Performance or Injunction. Court upholds Arbitrator's finding that the agreement was a license, not a lease, and that claims for specific performance and injunction were barred under Sections 14 and 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Petitioner sought to set aside the Arbitrator's award dated 8 October 2010, which rejected their claims for specific performance and injunction.

The Petitioner was aggrieved by the Arbitrator's award rejecting their claims for specific performance of the warehousing agreement and for injunction restraining the Respondent from terminating the agreement.

The sole Arbitrator passed an award on 8 October 2010 rejecting the Petitioner's claims.

Whether the warehousing agreement was a license or a lease? Whether the Petitioner was entitled to specific performance of the agreement? Whether the Petitioner was entitled to an injunction restraining the Respondent from terminating the agreement? Whether the Arbitrator's award was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

The Petitioner argued that the agreement was a lease and not a license, and that they were entitled to specific performance and injunction. The Respondent argued that the agreement was a license, and that specific performance and injunction were not available as remedies under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

A warehousing agreement that grants permission to use premises for warehousing business without exclusive possession is a license, not a lease. A licensee cannot seek specific performance of such an agreement as it involves continuous acts requiring supervision, which is barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. An injunction to prevent breach of a contract not specifically enforceable is also barred under Section 41(e) of the same Act. The scope of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, and the court cannot re-examine the merits of the award unless it is perverse.

The Petitioner has challenged Award dated 8 October, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator, based upon the arbitration clause in the warehousing agreement dated 6 February 2001. The basic case of the Petitioner as alleged and the relevant orders passed by the Court arising out of the disputes/litigation between the parties revolving around the agreement as relevant are required to be noted. The Respondent was a tenant of Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) in respect of a godown premises known as 'TW2, I.A.F. Shed' situated near Central Warehousing Corporation, Opp. Indian Air Force, Cotton Green (East), Mumbai 400 033 (the godown) which was lying vacant, unused since 1996. On 6 February 2011, by the 1st Agreement, the Respondent allowed the Petitioner to utilize the godown for their warehousing business for 11 months, from 28 February, 2001 to 31 January, 2002. The Petitioner was in fact a licensee of the Respondent in respect of godown. On 1 February 2012, the IInd Agreement for warehousing for a further period of 11 months on the same terms was entered into. On 28 February 2003, the IIIrd Agreement, the Petitioner was again appointed as a licensee of the Respondent in respect of the godown for a period of 6 years i.e. initially for 3 years renewable for further 3 years. On 3 March 2002, the Respondent executed 'No Objection Certificate' recording their no objection to the Petitioner to enter into warehousing agreements with their

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into a warehousing agreement on 6 February 2001. Disputes arose, and the matter was referred to arbitration. The sole Arbitrator passed an award on 8 October 2010 rejecting the Petitioner's claims. The Petitioner then filed Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2011 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court of Bombay, which was reserved on 11 February 2013 and pronounced on 9 April 2013.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 34
• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 14, Section 41(e)