https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197263 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. en-us Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 15:44:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197263 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197263