Delhi High Court Halts NOIDA's Unilateral Hike in Advertisement Fees Pending Arbitration
Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited Secures Interim Relief Against Noida Authority's Coercive Measures
In a significant relief for Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Jasmeet Singh, has stayed the enforcement of a unilateral revision in advertisement license fees by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The court, ruling on an interim petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restrained NOIDA from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner pending arbitration proceedings.
The dispute stems from a letter dated September 10, 2025, wherein NOIDA's Outdoor Advertisement Department revised the advertisement license fee to INR 457 per square foot per month, effective retrospectively from April 1, 2024. The petitioner contended that this abrupt hike from the previously contested INR 125 per square foot per month, which itself was under protest, violated the Concession Agreement and principles of natural justice, as no show-cause notice was given.
The court recognized the prima facie right of the petitioner to display advertisements based on the Concession Agreement dated November 12, 1997, and Clause 8 of the NOIDA Land Lease dated October 23, 1998. Despite the Allahabad High Court’s 2016 judgment, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2024, which ended the petitioner’s right to collect toll fees, the right to advertise was not interdicted.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Noida Toll Bridge Company, argued that the sudden fee hike lacked contractual basis and was a unilateral decision by NOIDA, infringing on the petitioner’s rights under the existing agreement. He emphasized the potential irreparable harm to the petitioner if interim relief was denied.
The court, recognizing the balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner, noted that without interim protection, the petitioner could suffer irreparable damage that monetary compensation could not address. Consequently, it ordered that no coercive actions be taken against the petitioner until the arbitration tribunal resolves the dispute.
The matter has been scheduled for the next hearing on January 16, 2026, allowing the respondent, represented by Advocate Aviral Saxena, four weeks to file a reply.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and interim relief - Dispute over unilateral increase in advertisement license fee by respondent - Prima facie, petitioner has a right to display advertisements as per the Concession Agreement, and balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioner - No coercive measures to be taken against petitioner pending arbitration proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9
