Bombay HC Grants Relief To Adtrack, Says Housing Federation Tried To 'Wriggle Out' Of Hoarding Deal

The Bombay High Court on Monday held that a housing federation was seeking to "wriggle out of contractual obligations" after changing its mind about the location of a proposed digital advertisement hoarding and granted interim protection permitting the project to proceed pending arbitration.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the federation had changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding and that the contractor would suffer irreparable loss if interim protection was denied.

“A strong prima-facie case is made out by the Petitioner for grant of interim measures before commencement of the arbitral proceedings. The Federation is seeking to wriggle out of contractual obligations because it has changed its mind about the site location of the hoarding. The Agreement has not been terminated by the Federation, who has in fact expressed willingness for installation of the hoarding structure at an alternative site. The Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if interim measures are not granted since the acts of the Federation have made Petitioner spend considerable amount (Rs.25,00,000/- as claimed in the Petition),” the court held.

The order was passed in a petition filed by Adtrack Media LLP against Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd., a federation of nine cooperative housing societies in Thane.

The dispute arose from an agreement executed on October 28, 2025, under which Adtrack was granted rights to construct and display a digital advertisement hoarding within the federation's premises.

The federation had invited bids for installation of the hoarding and awarded the contract to Adtrack after it emerged as the highest bidder in a competitive process. It subsequently issued multiple No Objection Certificates, enabling Adtrack to obtain permissions from the Traffic Department and the Thane Municipal Corporation.

After installation work commenced on February 21, 2026, the federation objected to the proposed site, contending that it was unsafe, could obstruct internal traffic movement, and had not been disclosed to the Managing Committee. It asked Adtrack to identify an alternative location.

Adtrack then approached the High Court seeking orders restraining the federation from obstructing the project.

One of the federation's principal defences was that the agreement was not binding because its Secretary lacked authority to execute it. The Court was not persuaded by that contention at the prima facie stage and noted that the federation had awarded the contract, issued multiple No Objection Certificates and permitted Adtrack to obtain statutory approvals without questioning the Secretary's authority.

“Far from initiating any action against the Secretary under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Federation has not even bothered to write a simple letter to the Secretary objecting to his act of signing the Agreement and issuing the NOCs. This again indicates that the Federation has raised the defence of absence of authority to the Secretary in its Affidavit-in-Reply by way of an afterthought,” the court observed.

The Court further held that, for the purpose of considering interim relief, the material on record created a prima facie impression that the federation was privy to the agreement.

“At present, it would be dangerous to even deny consideration of interim measures by recording a conclusive finding that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. On the other hand, the facts and circumstances of the case create a prima-facie impression about the Federation being privy to the Agreement dated 28 October 2025,” the court held.

The court noted that the dispute was not over Adtrack's entitlement to erect the hoarding, but over the location where it was proposed to be installed.

“The dispute is only with regard to the location at which the Petitioner is proposing to erect the hoarding structure,” the Court observed.

Examining the proposal, the agreement and the No Objection Certificates, the Court held that the material on record prima facie indicated that the location had been identified from the outset and that the federation later changed its position regarding the site.

“Considering the above position, prima facie it is apparent that the hoarding structure is being installed by the Petitioner at the site location earlier agreed upon by the Federation and that the Federation has now changed its mind about the site location,” the Court held.

The court accordingly restrained the federation from obstructing or stopping construction and erection of the hoarding structure pending arbitration. It directed commencement of arbitral proceedings within 90 days, failing which the interim protection would automatically cease. The operation of the order has been stayed for four weeks.

For Adtrack Media LLP: Advocates Mohammed Zain Khan and Ashraf Kapoor, instructed by One Legal.

For Happy Valley Homes CHS Federation Ltd.: Advocate Rohit Joshi.