Interim relief in commercial contracts cannot keep a terminated development agreement alive where readiness, willingness, and prima facie default are not shown.

Interim protection under Section 17 was rightly refused where a commercial development contract required the contractor to complete the work on time, arrange its own funding, and secure approvals, but the contractor accepted revised arrangements with knowledge of the SEZ regime and failed to show that the other side caused the delay. The record also showed default in bank repayment, invocation of the counter guarantee, stoppage of work, and lack of readiness and willingness. In these circumstances, the tribunal and Court held that termination for prima facie default could stand, the bargain could not be rewritten, and any remedy lay in damages rather than compelled continuation of the contract.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim protection could be granted to stay termination of the development agreements and consequential notices in arbitration proceedings, and whether the arbitral tribunal erred in refusing relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The development arrangement was a commercial public project governed by contract terms requiring the petitioner to complete the work within the stipulated period, arrange its own funds, and comply with statutory approvals. The petitioner had accepted the additional land offered after the height restriction issue, entered into later agreements with full knowledge of the SEZ regime, and did not establish that the respondent was responsible for the delay. The record also showed default in repayment to the bank, invocation of the counter guarantee, stoppage of work, and absence of readiness and willingness on the petitioner's part. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract on account of default, that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay in damages, and that neither the Court nor the arbitral tribunal could rewrite the bargain or compel continuation of the contract.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant interim relief and to stay the termination was upheld, and the petitioner failed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not warrant interference and the termination of the agreements was allowed to stand, leaving the petitioner to pursue any contractual claim in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a commercial contract, where the party seeking protection is not shown to be ready and willing and the contract has been terminated for prima facie default, interim relief cannot be used to compel specific performance or keep the contract alive; the ordinary remedy lies in damages.

---