Status Quo Ante Is a Mandatory Direction, Cannot Be Granted Lightly Without Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Interim Order

“No Ad-Interim Mandatory Injunction Without Reasoned Justification – Status Quo Ante Is Not Status Quo,” In a ruling that reiterates the vital distinction between “status quo” and “status quo ante”, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an ad-interim mandatory injunction directing restoration of possession under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be passed casually or without specific, reasoned findings.

The appeals arose from interim orders passed in CAOP Nos. 37 & 38 of 2025 — petitions under Section 9 of the 1996 Act — filed by M/s Vishwanadh Sports and Convention Private Limited challenging the Port Authority’s termination of lease and re-entry into possession of the leased premises. The impugned direction to “maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing” was passed at the ad-interim stage without any reason recorded, which the High Court found to be legally impermissible.

“Status Quo Ante Means Reversal of Possession — Not Permissible Without a Prima Facie Case and Cogent Reasons”

The core legal error flagged by the High Court was the distinction between status quo and status quo ante, with the latter implying not merely preservation but restoration of a previous state of affairs, which can amount to a mandatory injunction.

Quoting from Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006) 3 SCC 312, the Court held:

“An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and where the prima facie materials justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties and the interests of justice demand restoration.”

The Court emphasised that no such prima facie findings were recorded, nor any clear justification given, by the Special Judge in directing restoration of possession to the lessee.

“Reasons Are the Life of Law” – Court Slams Non-Speaking Order as Legally Unsustainable

The Division Bench pulled no punches in describing the impugned order as devoid of the minimum requirements of judicial reasoning. Observing that the order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act simply directed “status quo ante” without any explanation or discussion, the Court held:

“The order dated 19.12.2025 makes it evident that no reason has been assigned for the justification to pass status quo ante as an ad-interim mandatory injunction… An order without justifiable reasons cannot be sustained — may it be judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative.”

The judgment relies heavily on the principle laid down in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla & Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, to reaffirm that orders must stand on the reasons recorded within them — reasons cannot be supplied later by way of affidavits or oral arguments.

“An order bad in the beginning may not be salvaged by additional justifications brought in after the fact,” the Court warned.

Disputed Possession Cannot Be Reversed at Interim Stage Without Fact Finding — Section 68 of Major Port Authorities Act Also Invoked

The High Court also rejected the argument that the possession taken by the Port Authority was illegal or contrary to the lease. It pointed out that such a factual determination required evidence and analysis, which ought to be undertaken by the Special Judge during full hearing of the Section 9 applications.

Referring to Sections 68(1) and 68(3) of the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, the Court observed that even assuming procedural lapses in the re-entry by the Port, that alone could not justify a blanket restoration order at the interim stage without the Special Judge recording any such finding.

“Whether the re-entry was in accordance with the lease deed or Section 68 of the 2021 Act requires factual investigation, which we will not enter into at this stage,” the Court clarified.

Reliance on 'Jindal Steel' Bank Guarantee Case Misplaced – Mandatory Possession Order Requires Higher Threshold

The respondent’s counsel attempted to rely on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Bansal Infra Projects (2025) 10 SCC 176, to argue that interim protection during pendency of Section 9 proceedings is permissible. However, the High Court sharply distinguished that case, noting that it dealt with a negative injunction (restraining invocation of bank guarantee) not a mandatory direction involving possession.

“The interim order in Jindal Steel merely restrained invocation of bank guarantee until the matter was heard. In contrast, the present case concerns a mandatory order altering possession. The legal threshold is far higher,” the Bench observed.

Impugned Order Set Aside – Section 9 Petitions to Be Decided on Merits

Concluding that the Special Judge failed to assign any reasons, recorded no prima facie findings, and ventured into mandatory directions without jurisdictional basis, the High Court allowed the appeals.

“The Special Judge is not justified in passing the order ‘to maintain status quo ante’ as on the date of the petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, as an ad-interim mandatory injunction,” the Court held, setting aside the interim order dated 19.12.2025 in both appeals.

The Court further directed that CAOP Nos. 37 and 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act be decided on merits by the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam on the already fixed date, 27.01.2026.

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026