Interim injunction in a public infrastructure contract was refused where termination disputes required arbitration and damages were adequate.

Ad-interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was refused because the dispute arose from a commercial public infrastructure contract involving contested issues of delay, land availability, performance capability, and force majeure. The court held that these matters required detailed adjudication in arbitration and that interim injunction could not be used to compel continuation of the contract or grant specific performance by that route. It also treated damages as an adequate remedy, making interlocutory interference with the termination notice inappropriate. The parties were left to pursue their substantive rights and any claims for compensation in arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether ad-interim injunctive relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be granted to restrain operation of the termination notice in a public infrastructure contract.

Analysis: The relief sought required the Court to interfere at an interlocutory stage in a commercial contract relating to a public project. The record showed serious disputes between the parties regarding delays, land availability, performance capability, and the effect of force majeure and other contractual clauses. The Court held that such disputed questions required detailed inquiry in arbitration and that the respondents' commercial decision to terminate the contract could not be compelled to continue by interim order. The availability of compensation or damages was also relevant, and the petitioner was not entitled to specific performance by way of interim injunction, particularly in view of the nature of the contract and the limitations on enforcing such relief.

Conclusion: Ad-interim injunction was not justified and the requested relief was refused.

Final Conclusion: Interim interference in the termination of the contract was declined, leaving the parties to work out their substantive rights in arbitration and on claims for damages, if any.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disputed commercial contract, especially one involving a public project, interim injunction under Section 9 will not be granted to compel continuance of performance where the dispute turns on issues requiring detailed adjudication and damages are an adequate remedy.

---