The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to businessman Rajeev Behl in a long-running dispute over ownership rights in the Capitol City Mall, now known as Emaya Mall, at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Holding that the dispute deserved preservation until an arbitral tribunal decides the rival claims, the Court restrained the respondents from creating third-party rights over 50% of the project's saleable area.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking urgent interim relief pending arbitration. Rajeev Behl claimed that he was entitled to a 50% interest in the mall project based on two Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) executed in 2011 and a subsequent arbitral award relating to the division of business interests within the Realtech Group.
According to the petition, the respondents later entered into transactions that allegedly diluted or transferred the disputed stake, prompting Behl to seek protection against any further alienation of the property until arbitration begins. The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that Behl had no independent ownership rights, that the claims were barred by limitation, and that the dispute primarily lay against Realtech Infrastructure Limited rather than them.
Court's Observations
Justice Mini Pushkarna clarified that proceedings under Section 9 are limited to preserving the subject matter of arbitration and are not meant to finally determine ownership or contractual rights.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed that the petitioner had produced sufficient material to establish a prima facie arbitral claim requiring interim protection. It noted that the MoUs, the earlier arbitral award and other documents collectively raised "a bona fide and arguable claim" that deserved adjudication before an arbitral tribunal rather than being decided at the interim stage.
Addressing the respondents' objections on limitation and ownership, the Court held that these involved disputed questions of fact and law which could not be conclusively examined in a Section 9 petition.
The bench observed,
"The disputes raised by the parties require detailed examination in arbitration and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act."
The Court also noted that multiple proceedings concerning the same project were already pending before different forums, indicating that the controversy remained unresolved. It found that if further third-party interests were created during this period, enforcement of any eventual arbitral award could become significantly more complicated.
Interim Protection Granted
The Court concluded that the petitioner had established all three requirements for interim relief a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury if protection was refused.
It further held that the respondents' argument regarding one of the companies being a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement would not prevent the Court from granting interim protection. The question of whether that entity could ultimately be bound by the arbitration agreement would be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court restrained the respondents, their directors, officers, agents and anyone claiming through them from creating any third-party rights in respect of 50% of the total saleable area of Capitol City Mall (now Emaya Mall), situated at Plot Nos. BG-1 and BG-2, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, pending arbitration.
The Court clarified that its findings were only prima facie and would not influence the arbitral tribunal while deciding the merits of the dispute.
The petition and the pending application were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rajeev Behl v. Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 129/2026
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Decision Date: 03 July 2026
