Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act to Prevent Payment to Contractor Pending Arbitration — Share Subscription Agreement and Concession Agreement Form Composite Transaction

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 112
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Welspun Enterprises Limited, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an interim injunction to restrain respondent no.3, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, from making payment of Rs.18,66,66,667/- or any other amount to respondent no.1, ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited, in relation to the cancellation of a concession agreement. The dispute arose from a project for the development of a modern bus terminal at Baramunda, Bhubaneswar, on a public-private partnership (BOT) basis. Respondent no.1 submitted a bid of Rs.56 crores and was selected as the preferred bidder. A special purpose vehicle, respondent no.2 (ARSS Bus Terminal Private Limited), was incorporated to implement the project. The petitioner entered into a share subscription agreement with respondent no.2, investing Rs.18.66 crores for a 49% stake, with an arbitration clause. Subsequently, the concession agreement between respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 was cancelled, and respondent no.3 proposed to pay compensation to respondent no.1. The petitioner sought to restrain such payment, claiming that the share subscription agreement and concession agreement were part of a composite transaction and that the arbitration clause covered disputes arising from the concession agreement. The court examined whether a prima facie case existed, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss. It held that the agreements were interconnected, and the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement could be invoked for disputes under the concession agreement. The court also rejected the argument of novation, finding that respondent no.1 remained liable under the concession agreement. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining respondent no.3 from making any payment to respondent no.1 or any other person except by way of refund to respondent no.2, pending the arbitration proceedings.

Headnote

A) Arbitration - Interim Measures - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Injunction against payment - Petitioner sought to restrain respondent no.3 from paying Rs.18,66,66,667/- to respondent no.1 on account of cancellation of concession agreement - Court held that a prima facie case exists as the share subscription agreement and concession agreement are part of a composite transaction, and the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement covers disputes arising out of the concession agreement - Balance of convenience in favour of petitioner and irreparable loss likely if payment made (Paras 1-22).

B) Arbitration - Composite Transaction - Arbitration Clause - Share Subscription Agreement and Concession Agreement - Court held that where two agreements are part of the same commercial project and one contains an arbitration clause, disputes under the other agreement can be referred to arbitration if they are interconnected - The arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement between petitioner and respondent no.2 covers disputes relating to the concession agreement between respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 (Paras 10-15).

C) Contract Law - Novation - Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Substitution of parties - Court held that there was no novation of the concession agreement as the original parties remained liable; the special purpose vehicle (respondent no.2) was merely a project implementer, not a substitute for respondent no.1 (Paras 16-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining respondent no.3 from making payment to respondent no.1 in relation to the cancellation of the concession agreement, pending arbitration.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition and granted an interim injunction restraining respondent no.3 from making any payment to respondent no.1 or any other person in relation to the cancellation of the concession agreement, except by way of refund to respondent no.2, pending the arbitration proceedings.

Law Points

  • Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • interim measures
  • prima facie case
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable loss
  • composite transaction
  • arbitration clause in related agreements
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015:BHC-OS:9660

Arbitration Petition No. 560 of 2013

2015-08-03

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

2015:BHC-OS:9660

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms. Rhia Marshall, Ms. Mihika Jalan, i/b. Economic Law Practice for the Petitioner; Mr. R. Banarjee, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Ratnesh Rai, Mr. Gautam Tiwari, i/b. Mr. Prateik Parija for Respondent No.1; Dr. Birendra Saraf, a/w. Mr. I.J. Nankani, Mr. H.S. Khokhawala, i/b. Nankani & Associates for Respondent No.2

Welspun Enterprises Limited

ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited, ARSS Bus Terminal Private Limited, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunction to restrain payment pending arbitration.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought an injunction against respondent no.3 from making payment of Rs.18,66,66,667/- or any other amount in relation to the project on account of cancellation of the concession agreement to respondent no.1 or any other person, except as and by way of refund to respondent no.2.

Filing Reason

The petitioner invested in respondent no.2 under a share subscription agreement with an arbitration clause. The concession agreement between respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 was cancelled, and respondent no.3 proposed to pay compensation to respondent no.1, which the petitioner claimed would defeat its rights under the share subscription agreement and the arbitration clause.

Issues

Whether the petitioner has a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whether the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement covers disputes arising out of the concession agreement. Whether there was a novation of the concession agreement substituting respondent no.2 for respondent no.1.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the share subscription agreement and concession agreement are part of a composite transaction, and the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement covers disputes under the concession agreement. It contended that respondent no.3's payment to respondent no.1 would cause irreparable loss and that the balance of convenience was in its favour. Respondent no.1 argued that the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement does not cover disputes under the concession agreement, and that there was a novation of the concession agreement substituting respondent no.2 for respondent no.1, thereby discharging respondent no.1 from liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that where two agreements are part of a composite transaction and one contains an arbitration clause, disputes under the other agreement can be referred to arbitration if they are interconnected. The share subscription agreement and concession agreement were held to be part of the same project, and the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement covered disputes arising from the concession agreement. The court also held that there was no novation of the concession agreement as respondent no.1 remained liable.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks an injunction against the respondent no.3 from making payment of the amount of Rs.18,66,66,667/- or any other amount in relation to the project on account of cancellation of the concession agreement to the respondent no.1 or any other person, except as and by way of refund to respondent no.2. The court held that the share subscription agreement and the concession agreement are part of a composite transaction and the arbitration clause in the share subscription agreement covers disputes arising out of the concession agreement.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 560 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief. The petition was reserved on 30th July 2015 and pronounced on 3rd August 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 62
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act to Prevent Payment to Contractor Pending Arbitration — Share Subscription Agreement and Concession Agreement Form Composite Transaction
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Public View. Land Dispute and Caste-Based Allegations Fail to Sustain Conviction Under SC & ST Act