Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered two commercial court appeals filed by Visakhapatnam Port Authority and its Chief Engineer challenging an ad-interim order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam in petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents, two companies represented by the same Managing Director, had obtained leases from the port authority for an auditorium and related premises. Disputes arose over alleged lease violations, show cause notices, invocation of bank guarantee, and termination notice. The respondents had earlier filed writ petitions challenging bank guarantee invocation and termination; the writ court granted interim protection on 01.08.2025 and later writ appeals were disposed on 08.09.2025, leaving parties to pursue remedies. The respondents then filed Section 9 applications before the Special Judge, which passed a series of interim orders, including on 19.12.2025 directing both parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing the petition. The appellants contended that such an order could not be passed at the ad-interim stage without reasons and that they were already in possession; the respondents argued the earlier order of 10.12.2025 had directed parties to act in accordance with the lease and that the appellants violated it, and that after the status quo ante order, the respondents regained possession. The High Court first overruled a Registry objection to maintainability, holding the appeal maintainable. It framed the limited question whether an ad-interim mandatory injunction directing status quo ante could be legally passed and sustained. The court explained the distinction between status quo and status quo ante, relying on Satyabrata Biswas and Bharat Coking Coal. It noted that status quo means existing state at a given point, while status quo ante means the state before, requiring restoration of previous state. It emphasized that such orders are not to be passed lightly and certainly not without reasons. Relying on Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh, the court reiterated that an interim mandatory injunction is not easily granted; it is passed only in clear circumstances where prima facie materials justify a finding that status quo was altered by one party and interests of justice demand restoration. The court made clear it would not go into merits of the pending Section 9 petitions and would leave those for the Special Judge. The extracted judgment did not include the final operative paragraph, but the analysis indicated that the impugned unreasoned ad-interim status quo ante order could not be sustained.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Interim Measures - Maintainability of Appeal Against Ad-Interim Order - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 - Registry raised objection to maintainability of appeal against an ad-interim order passed in pending Section 9 petition; High Court overruled the objection and held appeal maintainable, but limited consideration to legality of impugned ad-interim order without entering merits of pending petitions. Held that an appeal against an ad-interim order in a pending Section 9 petition can be considered (Paras 23-26). B) Civil Procedure - Interim Mandatory Injunction - Principles Governing Grant - Not mentioned - An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy easily granted; it is passed only in clear circumstances where prima facie materials justify a finding that status quo was altered by one party and interests of justice demand restoration. Held that such orders require justifiable reasons and are not to be passed lightly (Paras 30-31). C) Interpretation - Status Quo and Status Quo Ante - Meaning and Distinction - Not mentioned - Status quo means existing state of things at a given point; status quo ante means state before the existing state and requires restoration of previous state. Held that status quo ante order disturbs existing state and must be supported by reasons (Paras 27-29). D) Arbitration - Section 9 - Ad-Interim Status Quo Ante Order - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 - Impugned order dated 19.12.2025 directed parties to maintain status quo ante as on date of filing petition without assigning reasons; court observed that such order cannot be sustained absent reasons and prima facie justification. Held that ad-interim mandatory injunction requires clear reasons (Paras 25-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ad-interim order directing parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be legally passed without assigning reasons, and whether the appeal against such an order was maintainable.
Law Points
- Status quo means existing state of things at a given point
- status quo ante means state before existing state and requires restoration
- interim mandatory injunction not granted lightly
- ad-interim order directing status quo ante without reasons unsustainable
- appeal against ad-interim order in pending Section 9 petition maintainable
- Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
