Bombay HC Protects Reliance BP Mobility’s Outlet Possession From Dealership Respondents’ Disruption Without Due Process, But Denies Injunction Against Landowner

The dispute arose from a dealership agreement and sub-lease executed on 3 August 2005.

The Petitioner terminated the dealership agreement on 16 July 2025 and sought renewal of the sub-lease; Respondent No. 4, the property owner and a confirming party to the sub-lease, maintained that the sub-lease expired on 2 August 2025 and no renewal was executed

The District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, by order dated 24 June 2026, accepted an objection that there was no arbitration agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and dismissed the suit

After complaints to PESO and related show-cause proceedings, the Petitioner sought interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against dispossession from the retail outlet without due process

Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, interim protection may be granted where the applicable considerations—including a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury—support it

A dispute over a person’s right to remain in possession does not, by itself, permit another party to dispossess that person by force; protection against forcible dispossession does not create or renew a lease or prevent lawful recovery of possession

Whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement depends on the parties’ consent and mutual intention; a connection to the same property or transaction alone is insufficient

Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP (India) (P) Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1, as discussed in ASF Buildtech (P) Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd., (2025) 9 SCC 76

The termination of the dealership, the dispute over renewal of the sub-lease, the earlier proceedings and the complaints and show-cause proceedings before PESO established a live dispute warranting limited protection against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; that protection did not determine the validity of termination or confer a renewed or permanent right to occupy the property

The Court distinguished Respondent No. 4: the District Munsif’s finding concerning the absence of an arbitration agreement, together with the lack of material showing his consent to arbitrate, did not support granting relief against him under Section 9

The order did not restrict either side from pursuing remedies before PESO or other competent authorities, whose proceedings were to be decided independently

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were restrained from disturbing the Petitioner’s existing possession of the retail outlet except by following due process of law; relief against Respondent No. 4 was refused

The Court clarified that the order did not recognize any right to renewal or extension of the sub-lease, left the parties’ other rights and contentions open, and permitted both sides to pursue their remedies, including before PESO

No order as to costs was made, and the Petition was disposed of