ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, this arbitration appeal has been preferred by the appellants questioning the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court (District Level) granting application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, as unsustainable and contrary to law.

2. Respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking interim measures under Section 9(1)(ii)(d) & (e) of the Act of 1996 stating inter alia that the contract awarded to it was terminated on 7-2-2021 illegally and he was blacklisted vide order dated 12-5-2021 and the order of recovery dated 12-5-2021 and the order of encashing the bank guarantee dated 13-5-2021 were passed against it. It has been further stated that pursuant to the order of termination dated 7-2-2021, the order of blacklisting dated 12-5-2021 and the order of recovery dated 12-5-2021; bank guarantee has also been sought to be encashed on 13-5-2021, and respondent No.1 has claimed that the action of the appellants herein is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and not bona fide, and the orders impugned have been passed without giving opportunity. It is also the case of respondent No.1 that as per clause 13 of the general terms and conditions of the contract, dispute should be resolved firstly by an in-house committee to be constituted by the appellants herein and if could not be resolved by that committee, then it should be resolved by appointing an arbitrator under clause 13A of the general terms and conditions of the contract. Injunction was sought to stay the effect and operation of the termination order, the order of blacklisting and the order seeking recovery dated 12-5-2021 restraining the appellants SECL from encashing the bank guarantee and other interim reliefs were also claimed in the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.

3. Reply was filed by the appellants herein opposing the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. It has been admitted that the contract has been terminated and respondent No.1 has been blacklisted and bank guarantee has been directed to be encashed and amount is being recovered from respondent No.1 herein.

4. The learned Commercial Court after hearing the parties and after going through the pleadings, by the impugned order dated 31-5-2021, set aside the order of blacklisting debarring respondent No.1 to take part in future tenders and also directed that respondent No.1 is entitled to remove equipments, machinery and further directed that no recovery shall be made till the settlement of account / dispute by constitution of an in-house committee as per clause 13 of the general terms and conditions of the contract and thereafter, by appointment of arbitrator as per clause 13A, however, permitted the SECL to encash the bank guarantee.

5. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants / SECL merely on the ground that the order setting aside the order of blacklisting of respondent No.1 Company debarring it to take part in future tenders, is clearly unsustainable and bad in law in view of Section 9(1)(ii)(d) & (e) of the Act of 1996.

6. Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that part of the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court to the extent of setting aside the order blacklisting respondent No.1 by order dated 12-5-2021 and further quashing the order debarring it take part in future tenders is totally unsustainable and bad in law, as the Commercial Court would have no jurisdiction to quash the order of blacklisting and debarring to take part in future tenders in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. However, he would further submit that respondent No.1 had already removed the equipments and the present appellants have already encashed the bank guarantee as per the ord