Himachal Pradesh HC Refuses To Stay IIT Mandi's Campus School Agreement Termination With Learning Curve Trust

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused interim relief to The Learning Curve Educational Trust, which sought a stay on the termination of its agreement to run a campus school at IIT Mandi.

The court held that, in the facts of the case, a party that failed to challenge a termination notice for nearly two years could not seek protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the Trust had “slept over the matter” and failed to satisfy the settled requirements for interim relief, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

"In light of the fact that the petitioner did not take steps to get rid of the Notice of termination dated 01.05.2024, for almost two years, now when the period of two years is coming to an end, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can plead that it has a prima facie case in its favour.,” the court said.

The dispute arose from an agreement dated November 20, 2017, under which IIT Mandi permitted the Trust to run “The Mind Tree IIT Mandi Campus School” at its Kamand campus. A licence deed executed on March 23, 2019 formalised the arrangement.

Clause 14 of the agreement allowed either party to terminate the arrangement after an initial three-year lock-in period by giving a written notice of at least two years.

On May 1, 2024, IIT Mandi issued a termination notice, ending the agreement and calling upon the Trust to vacate the premises within two years.

The trust approached the High Court only in April 2026 by filing a writ petition challenging the notice. On April 6, 2026, a Coordinate Bench declined interim relief.

An appeal against that order was withdrawn on April 24, 2026. The writ petition was also withdrawn the same day, with the Trust stating that it had availed remedies available in law.

It thereafter filed the present petition under Section 9 seeking interim measures, including protection of possession and a stay on the termination notice.

Before the Court, the Trust argued that the notice was void ab initio as it had been issued by the Registrar without authority and that such a decision ought to have been taken by the Board of Governors. It also relied on the Board's meetings held in April 2026 to contend that a fresh cause of action had arisen.

Opposing the plea, IIT Mandi submitted that the Trust had been aware of the termination since May 1, 2024 and was attempting to obtain, in these proceedings, what had already been declined earlier.

The court noted that the termination notice granted a clear two-year period to vacate in terms of the agreement and that the Trust did not take steps to get rid of the notice within time.

Rejecting the reliance on the Board's meetings, the court held that the grievance arose from the termination notice dated May 1, 2024 and not from subsequent developments.

Holding that no prima facie case was made out, that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the Trust, and that no irreparable loss would be caused, the Court dismissed the petition.

It clarified that the observations were confined to the adjudication of the present petition and would not affect the merits of the dispute in arbitration.

For Petitioner (The Learning Curve Educational Trust): Advocates Ankush Dass Sood, Vinay Kumar Pandey.

For Respondent (The Indian Institute of Technology): Advocates Devyani Sharma, Suneet Goel, Vivek Negi, Vishwas Kaushal, Anirudh Sharma.