The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to apply the principles governing the grant of interlocutory remedies, including the requirement for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, in the context of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 17.

B. P. Colabawalla, J.

1. Admit. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioner under 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 19th March, 2018 (for short “the impugned order”) under which the interim reliefs sought for by the petitioner herein was rejected and the interim relief sought for by the respondent herein was partially granted. The petitioner is the respondent before the arbitral Tribunal. The respondent herein is the claimant. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Arbitral Tribunal.

3. By Arbitration Petition No. 681 of 2018, the petitioner (the respondent before the Tribunal) takes exception to the impugned order insofar as it restrains the petitioner (the respondent before the Tribunal) from enforcing the demand notice dated 9th November, 2017, during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Arbitration Petition No. 682 of 2018 challenges that part of the impugned order by which the interim reliefs sought for by the petitioner (the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal) were rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. Since both the petitions arise out of the same arbitration proceedings, the facts in both the petitions are identical and hence both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the arbitral proceedings are that in furtherance of the Government Company Dispensation Scheme under Section 3 (3) (a) (i) of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973, the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd (“MAHAGENCO”) and the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd (“GSECL”) were allotted the Machhakata and Mahanadi Coal Blocks located in the Talcher coal field in the State of Odisha. After the allocation of these Coal Blocks at Machhakata and Mahanadi, MAHAGENCO and GSECL formed a joint venture company called MAHAGUJ COLLIERIES LTD (the respondent before the Tribunal) to exploit and develop the Machhakata Coal Block. In order to develop and operate the Coal Blocks, a tender was floated by the respondent to engage a Mine Developer-cum-Operator (“MDO”). In response to the aforesaid tender floated by the respondent, the claimant formed a Consortium with PT Bara Jaya Utama, as Associate Member. The Consortium submitted its bid on 27th January, 2009. As the claimant led Consortium was the lowest bidder, the respondent vide its letter dated 20th May, 2009 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the claimant on behalf of the Machhakata and Mahanadi Coal Blocks in the Talcher Coal Field.

5. The claimant led Consortium furnished a Performance Bank Guarantee (“PBG”) dated 19th August, 2009 amounting to Rs. 150 Crores issued by ICICI Bank Limited guaranteeing the performance of its obligations. Subsequently, a Coal Mining Services Agreement (“CMSA”) was entered into between M/s Adani Enterprises Limited (the claimant) and Mahaguj Collieries Limited (the respondent) on 6th May, 2010. This agreement was entered into between the parties for undertaking the exploration, development and mining of coal from the Machhakata and Mahanadi Coal Blocks in the Talcher coal field.

6. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide its judgment dated 25th August, 2014 and order dated 24th September, 2014, in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors [W.P. (Cri) 120 of 2012], cancelled the allocation of all Coal Blocks, including the Coal Blocks allocated to the respondent.

7. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court's judgment and order, certain disputes arose between the parties under the CMSA dated 6th May, 2010. Hence, the claimant invoked the arbitration clause in the CMSA and the Arbitral Tribunal came to be constituted. Once the Tribunal was constituted, directions were given by it and purs