Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Adtrack Media LLP, an advertisement agency, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures before the commencement of arbitral proceedings. The disputes arose out of an Agreement for Construction of Hoardings and Display of Advertisements dated 28 October 2025 between the petitioner and the respondent, Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent and its office bearers from disturbing or stopping the construction/erection work of the hoarding and from terminating the agreement. The respondent is a federation of nine cooperative societies that decided to grant a license for erecting an illuminating advertisement display. The petitioner submitted a proposal on 20 April 2025, and after considering three proposals, the General Body Meeting of the Federation held on 4 May 2025 resolved to award the contract to the petitioner, who quoted the highest annual rental of Rs. 4,32,000/- for a 30x30 feet hoarding. A No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued by the Secretary of the Federation on 15 May 2025, and another notarized NOC was executed on 13 October 2025. The petitioner applied to the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) on 27 October 2025 for permission to erect the hoarding. On 28 October 2025, the agreement was executed, granting the petitioner the right to construct, erect, and display a hoarding of size 40x40 feet on payment of annual compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/- with 15% escalation every 3 years. The agreement was signed by the Federation's Secretary, Mr. Shivaji Jadhav. The petitioner also obtained an NOC from the Traffic Department on 4 February 2026 and permission from TMC. The court considered the submissions and found that the petitioner had a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in favor of the petitioner, and irreparable injury would be caused if interim relief was not granted. The court granted interim relief restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction of the hoarding and from terminating the agreement, subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the agreement.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Interim Measures - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Prima Facie Case - The petitioner, an advertisement agency, entered into an agreement with the respondent federation for erecting a hoarding. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner as the agreement was executed after due process and consideration. (Paras 1-4) B) Arbitration - Balance of Convenience - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The balance of convenience was in favor of the petitioner as the respondent had already received consideration and the petitioner had obtained necessary permissions. (Paras 5-6) C) Arbitration - Irreparable Injury - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury if the hoarding construction was stopped, as substantial investment had been made. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction of a hoarding and from terminating the agreement.
Final Decision
The court granted interim relief restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction of the hoarding and from terminating the agreement, subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the agreement.
Law Points
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Interim measures before arbitration
