CLOSE
18 November 2021 | National Highways Authority of India v. Panipat Jalandhar NH-1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. and connected matter | ARB. A. (Comm.) 66 of 2021| Sanjeev Narula J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5066
An appeal against the tribunal’s order under Section 17 ACA refusing to stay the termination of a contract has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
Sanjeev Narula J rejected the argument that the appeal should be admitted because there is no authoritative decision so far on the impact of the 2018 Amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 vis-a-vis commercial contracts.
Among others, in the view of the tribunal, the matter related to a commercial contract determinable in its nature and could not be specifically enforced. PEL argued the effect of the impugned order was that a termination notice could never be stayed under Section 17 ACA and in a commercial contract, specific performance could never be granted even post-2018 amendments to SRA.
Narula J found no reason to interfere because it was only a prima facie view of the tribunal, and if the termination was found illegal the petitioner could always be compensated.
Read the judgment here.
Categories: Appealable Orders | Determinable Contract | Interim Measures by Court | Interim Measures Ordered by Arbitral Tribunal | Irreparable Loss | Prima Facie Case | Section 17 ACA | Section 37 (2) (a) ACA | Section 37 (2) (b) ACA | Section 37 ACA | Section 42 Specific Relief Act | Specific Performance | Termination | Termination of Contract