VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek an interim order of injunction against the respondent no.1, DDA to stay the effect and operation of the notice dated 16.10.2010 issued by it; to restrain the respondent no.1 from giving effect to the demand as raised in the said notice; to restrain the respondent no.1 from taking any steps pursuant to the notice dated 16.10.2010, and; to restrain the respondent No.1/DDA from invoking the three bank guarantees aggregating to ` 183.00 crores , as furnished by respondent No.2 State Bank of Patiala (who have furnished their guarantee for ` 33 crores being BG No. 5079408BG0000654) and respondent no.3, i.e. State Bank of India (who have furnished their Guarantee for ` 150 crores being BG No. 0480308BG0010173), to any extent whatsoever.

2. Corresponding injunction is sought against respondent nos.2 and 3 banks from encashing the aforesaid bank guarantees furnished by them at the behest of the petitioner in favour of respondent no.1, DDA.

3. The petitioner company is a real estate developer and claims to have undertaken various real estate development projects all over the country. The petitioner states that sometime in 2006, the respondent DDA invited bids for development and construction of Commonwealth Games Village on a parcel of land comprising 11 hectares adjacent to Akshardham Temple in NOIDA. The petitioner was shortlisted along with other 11 bidders, and eventually selected as the successful bidder. The construction of residential towers of the Commonwealth Games Village was to be undertaken on Public-Private Participation (PPP) basis.

4. The parties entered into a Project Development Agreement (PDA) on 14.09.2007. This agreement contains an arbitration agreement in clause 17. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Act by relying upon the said arbitration clause contained in the Project Development Agreement.

5. The petitioner claims to have made payment of earnest money of ` 80.25 crores and also an amount of ` 120.375 crores towards upfront fee. The petitioner also states that it appointed various consultants and architects to execute the project.

6. Under the terms of the agreement, “Project Completion Date” was defined to mean the date when all residential facility are completely developed in all respects (including landscaping), technically fit to be occupied and ready to use/livable, with no pending construction, unfinished work, construction equipments, debris, construction material etc. on the project site and certified in writing by the Monitory Committee. (Clause 1.1.20).

7. The petitioner, who acted as a project developer, was obliged to completely develop the project by 01.04.2010 (Clause 3.11). The date of completion of the Project is deemed to be the date when all Residential Apartments are completely developed and are technically fit to be occupied, including all other associated facilities and amenities and a completion / occupancy certificate in this regard has been obtained from NDMC/MCD and DDA.

8. Under clause 3.1, the Project Developer was, inter alia, obliged to develop the residential facility at the project site within the time frames as set out in greater detail in Schedule III to the Agreement. Clause 3.1 reads as follows:

“3.1 The Project Developer shall undertake to develop the Project Site and construct such capacity of residential accommodation and meeting such specifications and requirements as are specified in greater detail in Schedule II to this Agreement. The Project Developer shall develop the Residential Facility at the Project Site within the time frames as set out in greater detail in Schedule III to this Agreement.”

9. Annex III/Schedule III contains the project milestones which the petitioner was obliged to attain. The same reads as follows:

Annex 3 PROJECT MILESTONE

A. Following are the Pr