Delhi High Court Says Advance Service Mandatory For Fair Hearing In Second Plea Over Nagpur Logistics Park

The Delhi High Court on 1 September dismissed a second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd., after noting that the company had obtained a status quo order without advance-serving the successful bidder, even though it had the bidder's complete contact details.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that advance service in proceedings seeking interim relief is essential to ensure that parties who may be affected by an order get an opportunity to be heard and that neither side gains an unfair procedural advantage. The Bench observed:

“The idea behind rules prescribing advance service is clearly laudable. In that, all parties who may be severely or drastically impacted by any order that might be passed by this Court ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing so as to ensure a level playing field.”

The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement executed on 12 December 2023, under which DC Multi Modal Park was entrusted with developing and operating the Nagpur Multi Modal Logistics Park at Sindhi, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd. terminated the agreement on 18 September 2025 and subsequently issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 9 October 2025 for the balance works.

Before the fresh tender was issued, DC Multi Modal Park had approached the High Court on 4 October 2025 through a petition under Section 9, seeking interim protection in relation to the project.

On 2 December 2025, the Court declined to grant the relief sought and relegated the parties to arbitration. It directed that the petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act before the arbitral tribunal once constituted.

Since the Court had not restrained the fresh tender, Maharashtra MMLP proceeded with the re-tendering process. The new bidder's technical qualifications were cleared on 27 February 2026. Its financial bid was opened and selected on 2 March, and Maharashtra MMLP issued a Letter of Award on 18 March.

The High Court noted that DC Multi Modal Park was aware of the progress of the re-tendering process but did not challenge it at that stage. Instead, it filed the second Section 9 petition seeking to restrain Maharashtra MMLP from proceeding with the fresh tender, executing a concession agreement with the successful bidder or engaging the bidder as the new concessionaire for the project.

The Bench held that the second petition sought relief that had already been declined in the first petition and amounted to an attempt to overreach its discretionary jurisdiction.

It also considered DC Multi Modal Park's delay in taking steps to constitute the arbitral tribunal. Although the 2 December 2025 order gave the parties two weeks to nominate their arbitrators, the company nominated its arbitrator only on 11 March 2026, nearly 100 days later. It held that a party that failed to take effective steps at the appropriate time could not take advantage of its own delay.

The Court further noted that DC Multi Modal Park had failed to advance-serve the successful bidder. The company had the bidder's complete details and email address, but its affidavit of service did not show that advance notice had been given. By the time notice was directed to be served, the status quo order had already significantly affected the successful bidder.

The Bench stressed that procedural rules may not constitute substantive law, but remain “handmaidens to justice” and are intended to ensure a level playing field between parties.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the second Section 9 petition was not maintainable and, even on merits, found no basis to grant interim relief. It dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 1 lakh and consequently vacated the status quo protection.

Appearances for petitioner (DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd.): Senior Advocate Mr. Kirtiman Singh, with Advocates Mr. Amber Sachdeva, Mr. Cauuery Rawal and Mr. Maullick, along with Mr. Mudit P./AR.

Appearances for respondent no. 1 (Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd.): Senior Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, with Advocates Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Twinkle Kataria and Mr. Kunal.

Appearances for respondent no. 2: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, with Advocates Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Arpit Goel, Mr. Deepak Jain and Mr. Showmik Choudhary.