RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "Arbitration Act") the parties are at loggerheads on the question of validity of order dtd. 23/01/2023, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application preferred by the appellant under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) The Court below in the impugned order has reproduced the factual backdrop of the entire matter extensively. The learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the Court below has taken pains to reproduce the contentions of both the parties. The grievance of the appellant is that although Court below was kind enough in mentioning the factual backdrop of the matter explicitly and even reproduced the arguments of the parties, it did not deal with the argument of the appellant in correct perspective. Thus, there is no need of reproduction of factual backdrop and the contentions raised because the order of Court below is already pregnant with those necessary details. What is required to be seen is that whether necessary ingredients for grant of interim relief viz - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss were established by the appellant or not. The ancillary question raised by Shri Oberoi is whether the Court below while assessing the claim of appellant for interim relief, has rightly applied the aforesaid factors of existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

(3.) In order to bolster this submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that prima facie case was clearly established because the appellant fulfilled his part of obligation arising out of contract. The work could not be started because of lethargic attitude of the respondents. The letter of acceptance dtd. 03/03/2021 which was followed by deposit of performance security by the appellant could not proceed further because work order was issued on 01/04/2021, which was handed over to the appellant on 12/04/2021. Thereafter, in the wake of second wave of COVID-19 and consequential lock down, the site was not handed over to the appellant till 09/08/2021. The date of completion of work was fixed as 08/02/2023. In spite of issuance of work order, the construction work could not be started till December as final earth level and layouts were not provided to appellant by the respondents.