2025:HHC:23990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CARBC No.14 of 2025 Decided on: 23.07.2025 South East Asian Study Foundation Trust & another … Petitioners Versus Vocational Education Foundation Trust & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Debesh Panda, Mr. Abhinav Singh and Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, praying for the following reliefs:- “a) Restraining respondents No. 1 and 2 and their agents, servants, persons and any other person acting for and on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 from disrupting the functioning of respondent No 3-University in any manner being. (b) Restraining respondents No.1 and 2 and their agents, servants, persons and any other person acting for and on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 from disrupting functioning of petitioner No.2 as Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3-University. (c) Directing respondent No.2 to execute, sign, furnish documents for de-freezing of Bank Account of respondent No.3-University for paying the salary to the staff, officials, paying expenses of University and for smooth functioning 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of respondent No.3-University. (d) Permitting petitioners to approach Kotak Mahendra Bank for liquidation of the entire outstanding liability of the Bank to prevent respondent No.3-University being taken over and in order to secure the interest of petitioners and respondent No.3-University.” 2. When this case was listed on 22.03.2025, as an interim protection to the petitioners, the Court passed the following order:- “Let dasti notice be issued for service of the respondents, on taking steps by 24.3.2025, returnable for 21.04.2025. Dasti notice be handed over to learned Counsel for the petitioners by 25.03.2025. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the interregnum, it is ordered that respondents No.1 and 2 shall not disrupt the functioning of respondent No.3-University. No disruption shall be caused by the said respondents in the course of functioning/management of petitioner No.2 of the University as Chief Executive Officer, the petitioners may approach Kotak Mahindra Bank for liquidation of the entire outstanding liability of the bank without prejudice to the rights of respondents No. 1 and 2. List on 21.4.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioners were required to commence the arbitration proceedings within 90 days from the date of passing of the interim order and till date nothing in this regard has been done by the petitioners. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, 3 on the other hand has submitted that though it is a matter of record that steps have not been taken for the initiation of the arbitration proceedings, but the petitioners intend to file an application under Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which is ready and he has the same with him. 5. Be that that as it may, fact of the matter is that arbitration proceedings in the present case were not commenced by the petitioners within 90 days as from the date of the grant of the interim order passed by this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Not only this, when the case was listed on 25.06.2025, this Court was made to believe on behalf of the petitioners that an application stood preferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the petitioners. In this backdrop, this Court passed the following order on 25.06.2025:- "On the request of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, list on 21.07.2025. However, parties shall be at liberty to make a mention for the listing of the case, in case, an arbitrator stands appointed in the application preferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the petitioners. Interim order to continue." However, it is a matter of record that till date no such application has been filed by the petitioners and the holding-out made on behalf of the petitioners was incorrect just to mislead the Court. 6. Accordingly, as needful in terms of sub-section (2) of 4 Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not done by the petitioners within 90 days as from the grant of the interim order, this petition is dismissed and the interim order is vacated. Costs of Rs.5,00,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners which shall be paid to the respondents for misleading the Court which led to the passing of the order dated 25.06.2025, which has been quoted by me hereinabove. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2025 (Rishi)