Interlocutory injunction in power purchase dispute left intact where triable issues and status quo concerns justified restraint

Interference with an interlocutory injunction in a power purchase agreement dispute was declined because the controversy involved triable issues on the meaning of "installed capacity" and on whether the matter belonged in arbitration or before the Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Court treated interim relief as dependent on the usual injunction factors: serious question to be tried, prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, preservation of status quo, and the parties' prior conduct. It also considered the risk of conflicting interim orders and judicial comity. The High Court's interim arrangement was left in place and the substantive issues remained open in the pending proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting interim injunction in a dispute arising out of a power purchase agreement and whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Analysis: The dispute concerned interpretation of the agreement, especially the expression "installed capacity", and the competing claims as to whether the matter fell for arbitration under the contractual clause or before the Electricity Regulatory Commission under the electricity statutes. The Court noted that the controversy had not yet been finally determined in the pending writ proceedings and the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It further held that the grant of interim relief depended on the familiar considerations governing interlocutory injunctions, namely existence of a serious question to be tried, prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, preservation of status quo, and the parties' past conduct. The Court also took into account the risk of conflicting interim orders and the principle of judicial comity.

Conclusion: The interim injunction granted by the High Court was not interfered with and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was declined in the exercise of discretionary appellate jurisdiction, leaving the interim arrangement in place and keeping the substantive contentions open for decision in the pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against an interlocutory injunction, interference is unwarranted where the dispute raises triable issues, the interim order preserves status quo, and the discretionary power under Article 136 does not call for disturbance of the High Court's interlocutory relief.

---