In this case, the GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd. filed an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the National Highways Authority of India to reimburse or release the amount that was deducted illegally and arbitrarily by the respondent in breach of the Arbitral Award.
What was the dispute between the parties in this case?
The dispute arose between the GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd. and the National Highways Authority of India regarding the requirement to do renewal work every five years arising out of the Concession Agreement entered into between the parties in 2006 for the design, construction, development, finance, operations, and maintenance of a certain stretch of National Highway 7 in Andhra Pradesh.
What was the outcome of the dispute resolution attempts between the parties?
After several attempts of dispute resolution between the parties, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by the Indian Council of Arbitration and an Award was passed in 2020.
What was the nature of the petition filed by GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd.?
GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd. filed a petition seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the National Highways Authority of India to reimburse or release the amount that was deducted illegally and arbitrarily by the respondent in breach of the Arbitral Award.
What was the decision of the Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. in this case?
The Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. dismissed the petition filed by GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd. and held that considering the limitations delineated under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court could not grant a permanent relief to the petitioner, especially when an Award had already been made highlighting the extent of claims and reliefs that the parties were
legally entitled for.
What was the Court’s interpretation of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in this case?
The Court noted that Section 9 of the Act grants power to the Court to make orders granting interim measure of protection and that an interim relief may be granted by the appropriate Court at any point of time before the Arbitral award becomes enforceable under Section 36 of the Act. The Court further noted that the words “such other interim measure of protection” had been inserted in Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the Act to define and narrow down the scope of the nature of interim relief that might be granted by the Court. The Court opined that a relief beyond the final relief as an interim measure should not be granted and the role of the Courts in the arbitral proceedings was supervisory.
The petition filed by GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd. seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the National Highways Authority of India to reimburse or release the amount that was deducted illegally and arbitrarily by the respondent was dismissed by the Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. as the Court held that considering the limitations delineated under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court could not grant a permanent relief to the petitioner.
