Allahabad High Court
SMT. NEELAM DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner must first avail the injunction remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Neelam Devi, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 07-04-2026 issued by respondent No.6 ordering her to vacate shop numbers 3 and 9. The petitioner had already approached the arbitrator (respondent No.4) under the arbitration agreement with respondent No.6. She argued that if forced eviction were attempted, she could seek an injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of an arbitration remedy. It held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy under the Act rather than the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate arbitration‑related relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging an eviction notice is maintainable when an arbitration remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- eviction
- arbitration
- injunction
- Section 9
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18488 of 2026
Smt. Neelam Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the
notice dated 07.04.2026 issued by respondent no. 6, whereby the
petitioner has been asked to vacate shop nos. 3 and 9 allotted to him.
3. It appears that the petitioner has already approached the Arbitrator, i.e.
respondent no. 4, in terms of the agreement executed between the
petitioner and respondent no. 6. In case respondent no. 6 attempts to
forcibly evict the petitioner, the petitioner has the remedy of filing an
application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
before the competent Court seeking an injunction restraining the
respondents from evicting him from the shops in question during the
pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
4 . In such view of the fact, we are not inclined to entertain the present
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under law.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 12, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…