27 August 2021 | Narangs International Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi International Airport Limited | OMP (I) (Comm) 294 of 2021 | Sanjeev Narula J | 2021 SCC Online Del 4197
Reiterating the trinity of principles on which an interim order under Section 9 ACA is made, the petition under Section 9 ACA was rejected for the following reasons:
- The petitioner did not have a prima facie case. It was a lessee of DIAL, handling the airport careering business. The lease was about to expire. It had no enforceable right to get an extension. An extension was negotiated in vain, but that did not mean DIAL could be compelled to enter into a contract. DIAL was free to choose its vendors.
- The contract was determinable within the meaning of Section 14 (d) Specific Relief Act, 1963, and could not be specifically enforced. So, under Section 41 (e) SRA, an injunction could not be granted.
- The petitioner had possession for over four decades, but that does not mean it had a right to occupy the premises or continue as a lessee in perpetuity.
Read the judgment here.
