Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Generic Engineering Construction and Projects Ltd., filed Commercial Arbitration Application No. 675 of 2025 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising out of a Work Order dated 25 January 2023 and Agreement dated 6 February 2023 with the respondent, Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB), for construction of an office building at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. The estimated work value was Rs.68,18,50,446/- with a 24-month completion period ending February 2025. Disputes arose regarding site handover, delayed removal of previous contractor's material, delayed drawings/approvals, statutory approvals, and a stop work notice. The respondent issued a show cause notice on 28 July 2025 alleging breaches. The petitioner also filed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 1070 of 2025 under Section 9 for interim measures to restrain encashment of bank guarantees and termination of the contract. The court examined the arbitration agreement and found it valid. On the Section 9 application, the court held that the petitioner had a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored granting interim relief to prevent irreparable loss. The court appointed a sole arbitrator and granted interim protection subject to the petitioner depositing a sum or furnishing security. The decision was pronounced on 27 April 2026.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Existence of Arbitration Agreement - The court examined whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and whether the disputes fell within its scope. Held that the arbitration clause in the Agreement dated 6 February 2023 covered the disputes raised by the petitioner, and the court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes (Paras 1-10). B) Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience - The court considered the petitioner's application for interim relief to prevent the respondent from encashing bank guarantees and to restrain termination of the contract. Held that the petitioner made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was in its favor, and granted interim protection subject to conditions (Paras 11-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Act should be granted pending arbitration.
Final Decision
The court allowed Commercial Arbitration Application No. 675 of 2025 and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The court also allowed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 1070 of 2025 and granted interim relief subject to the petitioner depositing a sum or furnishing security as directed.
Law Points
- Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Existence of arbitration agreement
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
