Amazon warehouse lease dispute over assets claimed to be worth ₹120 crore referred to arbitration as inventory ordered

The petitioner and Respondent No. 1 entered into a registered lease deed dated 27 June 2022 concerning premises at Horizon Urban Logistics Park, Nangli Puna, Delhi.

The petitioner alleged that the lessor failed to meet obligations concerning dry access, an occupancy certificate, fire compliance and utility connections, and that it terminated the lease by notice dated 2 April 2026 and raised an indemnity claim of approximately ₹182.50 crore.

The respondents disputed the termination and attributed the delay to force majeure.

After termination, the petitioner began dismantling and removing its assets, valued at approximately ₹120 crore, but alleged that the respondents restricted access to the premises.

It therefore sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including access to remove its assets and an inventory by a Local Commissioner.

Respondent No. 1 undertook not to obstruct the petitioner’s ingress or egress for four weeks.

The parties consented to arbitration, while Respondent No. 3 disputed that it was a necessary party.

1. Whether the parties’ disputes should be referred to arbitration by appointing a sole arbitrator, notwithstanding their contractual and formal procedure.

2. Whether the petitioner’s Section 9 petition should be treated as an application under Section 17 for the arbitral tribunal to decide.

3. Whether interim arrangements should be made to preserve and document the petitioner’s assets at the premises pending arbitration.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for interim measures by a court in arbitration-related matters, while Section 17 empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures.

Section 12(2) requires an arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure.

The Court acted on the parties’ consent to refer their disputes to arbitration and directed that the pending Section 9 application be treated as an application under Section 17.

No precedent was cited, and the Court did not determine the merits of the contractual dispute or the parties’ objections.

Given the parties’ mutual consent to arbitration, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator and directed that the arbitration commence without delay.

It transferred consideration of interim relief to the tribunal by treating the Section 9 petition as a Section 17 application, to be decided after the arbitrator entered upon the reference.

To document the assets and their condition while the dispute remained unresolved, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises in both parties’ presence, prepare an inventory, record objections, and submit a report with photographs or video.

The Court left questions including arbitrability, jurisdiction and holding charges for determination by the tribunal.

The Court recorded Respondent No. 1’s undertaking not to obstruct ingress or egress for four weeks and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and inventory the petitioner’s assets.

All pleas and objections were reserved for the tribunal, and the Court’s observations were not to influence its independent adjudication.