Arbitral interim relief review is narrow where no written extension of the Term Sheet was shown

Interference under Section 37(2)(b) with an arbitral tribunal's refusal of interim relief under Section 17 is confined to cases of implausibility, patent illegality, or comparable perversity, and the court will not reappreciate the material merely because another view is possible. Applying that standard, the tribunal's reasoned finding that no prima facie case existed was sustained. The Term Sheet was also found to terminate on 12.04.2023 unless extended in writing or otherwise agreed in writing; as no written extension or binding SPA was shown in the communications, it was treated as a preliminary arrangement rather than a concluded contract capable of supporting interim protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court should interfere under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the Arbitral Tribunal's refusal of interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the Term Sheet remained operative beyond 12.04.2023 and constituted a binding basis for interim protection.

Issue (i): Whether the Court should interfere under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the Arbitral Tribunal's refusal of interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Interference in an appeal against an interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is confined to situations where the impugned view is not plausible or suffers from patent illegality or a comparable perversity. The Court will not reappreciate the material or substitute its own view merely because another interpretation is possible. The Tribunal had examined the contractual clauses and the communications between the parties and had reached a reasoned conclusion on the absence of a prima facie case.

Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out; the Tribunal's refusal of interim relief was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the Term Sheet remained operative beyond 12.04.2023 and constituted a binding basis for interim protection.

Analysis: The Term Sheet stipulated termination on 12.04.2023 unless extended in writing or otherwise agreed in writing. The Court found the clause to be clear and self-operating. The communications exchanged, including e-mails and WhatsApp messages, did not show any written extension or acceptance of a binding SPA on the same commercial terms. The document was therefore treated as an arrangement leading towards a future agreement rather than a concluded binding contract capable of supporting interim restraint.

Conclusion: The Term Sheet was not shown to have been validly extended, and no binding prima facie entitlement to interim protection was established.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the refusal of interim measures failed, and the arbitral order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court will interfere with an interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal only when the Tribunal's view is implausible, perverse, or legally unsustainable; where the contract requires written extension and none is shown, the Court will not rewrite the bargain or infer continuation from negotiations alone.

---