The High Court in IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Pvt. Ltd v. National Highways Authority of India had passed interim orders dated October 14, 2019 and June 30, 2020. The interim order dated June 30, 2020 restrained the respondent therein from taking any coercive action against the petitioner until the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the arbitral tribunal was constituted during the pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner submitted that it would file an application within two weeks of the arbitral tribunal entering upon reference. The petitioner also prayed that the interim orders be continued till the disposal of the application under Section 17 of the Act. The Court disposed of the application under Section 9 of the Act and directed that the interim orders passed by it on October 14, 2019 and June 30, 2020 shall remain in force until the decision of the arbitral tribunal on the application proposed to be filed under Section 17 of the Act.
In Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Pvt Ltd v. Sinnar Thermal Power Limited & Another, the High Court had passed an interim order dated August 20, 2019 restraining the respondent therein from encashing the bank guarantee, and thereafter, a tribunal was constituted during the pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act. The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw its application under Section 9 of the Act and directed that the pleadings in the Section 9 proceedings would be treated as pleadings in the application under Section 17 of the Act. With respect to the interim order dated August 20, 2019, the Court directed that it would remain in operation for a period of three weeks from the order disposing of the application under Section 9 of the Act.
In Vineet Bansal v. M/s Golf Green Infra Private Limited, the High Court had passed an interim order dated November 5, 2020 restraining the respondent therein from cancelling the allotment of a flat. On July 9, 2021, which was during the pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act, an order appointing an arbitrator was passed by the same bench. The Court disposed of the application under Section 9 of the Act directing that the interim order dated July 9, 2021 shall continue to operate for a period of eight weeks. It also recorded that the petitioner was free to approach the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 seeking continuation/modification of the order dated November 5, 2020.
In Sterlite Technologies Limited v. Union of India, the High Court had passed an interim order dated November 25, 2020 directing the respondent therein to not take any coercive action pursuant to certain impugned communications till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the arbitral tribunal was constituted by the order of a coordinate bench of the same Court during the pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act. The Court disposed of the application under Section 9 of the Act and directed that the application under Section 9 of the Act be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act by the arbitral tribunal. With respect to the interim order dated November 25, 2020, the Court directed that it would continue for a period of eight weeks subject to extension/vacation/modification of the interim order by the arbitral tribunal.
Source: Barandbench
