Delhi HC – Section 9 Relief Ancillary, Not a Substitute for Specific Performance
Judgment dated 15.4.2026 of the High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS) (COMM) 14/2026 of JLT Energy 9SAS Vs. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited and others
The appellant had executed two Share Purchase Agreements with the respondents on 31.12.2024. SIAC was to administer the arbitration.
On 7.8.2025 the appellant invoked the arbitration clause and claimed emergency relief before the SIAC. The Emergency Arbitrator passed the prohibitory injunction order against the respondents.
In this background, the appellant filed section 9 petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the SPAs stood terminated and on the grounds mentioned in para 9 of the order. However, the respondents were directed to deposit Rs.3 crores to balance equities.
The SPAs stood automatically terminated upon non-fulfilment of the CP (Conditions Precedent) within the CLSD (Closing Long Stop Date), and the Appellant has failed to establish any subsisting right warranting protection by way of an interim injunction. 68. The interim relief sought would, in effect, extend contractual restraints, originally limited to a defined period, throughout the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, without payment of any consideration, in respect of assets valued at approximately USD 12 million. Grant of such relief would impose disproportionate and irreparable commercial burdens upon the Respondents, wholly unwarranted in the facts of the present case.
The issue was whether interim injunction can be granted to restrain the respondents during arbitral proceedings, even after termination of the Share Purchase Agreements.
Interim relief cannot be granted for specific performance of terminated share purchase agreements.
Section 9 Interim Relief is ancillary and pre-supposes a subsisting contract.
Section 9 Interim Relief cannot be granted for revival of terminated contract or compel statutory approvals.
Singapore Emergency Arbitrator Interim Injunction Order under SIAC Rules cannot bind Indian Courts. Section 9 AA requires independent consideration of the facts under the Indian Law.
SPAs were composite and interlinked (Tamil Nadu SPA was a condition precedent to the SPA Bihar). The NA land use conversion condition was condition precedent and failure to fulfil CPs by the Closing Long Stop Date (CLSD) resulted automatic termination of the agreements.
