VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the following reliefs:

(a) An ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from directly or indirectly and in any manner whatsoever acting under its letter of termination dated August 27, 2010 of the Production Sharing Contract (PSC), and taking any other steps detrimental to the interests of the petitioner till the matter is finally disposed off by an arbitral tribunal.

(b) An ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from directly or indirectly and in any manner whatsoever considering the termination of the PSC as being effective on and from August 29, 2010.

(c) An order of status quo ante pending the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner had sought the reliefs ex parte as well.

2. The petitioner claims that it is an oil and gas exploration and production company incorporated under the laws of the Province of Alberta, Canada. The respondent is the Union of India, represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

3. The President of India entered into a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) dated 23.02.2001 in respect of the Amguri oil field in the state of Assam, with one Assam Company Limited (ACL) and one Joshi Technologies International Inc. (JTI). The participating interest (P.I.) of ACL was 75% and that of JTI was 25%. The petitioner acquired the participating interest in the PSC to the extent of 60% i.e 25% of JTI’s P.I. and 35% of ACL’s P.I. vide amendment agreement 26.07.2004. The petitioner, apart from being a “contractor” under the PSC was also appointed as the “operator”. ACL remained the other contractor with 40% P.I.

4. The primary dispute which has arisen between the parties under the PSC is whether the petitioner is in breach of Article 29 of the said agreement which deals with the aspect of assignment of PI of any party comprising the contractor. The said dispute would necessarily have to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal upon an interpretation of the contractual terms and their application to the facts of this case. As the respondent has sought to terminate the PSC vide letter dated 27.08.2010 on the premise that the petitioner is in breach of Article 29 of the PSC, the petitioner has preferred this petition to seek interim measures of protection. I will, therefore, examine and evaluate, in the course of this order, prima facie, the submissions made by the parties to the extent it is necessary, and it is made clear that any observation made by me in this order would not come in the way of the Arbitral Tribunal in arriving at its own conclusions upon the interpretation of the PSC.

5. I may, at this stage, take note of a few relevant provisions of the PSC. The recitals contained in the PSC dated 23.02.2001 set out the background in which that agreement was executed. The same read as follows:

“WITNESSETH: WHEREAS

(1) The Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (53 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959, made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) make provision, inter alia, for the regulation of Petroleum Operations and grant of licenses and leases for exploration, development and production of Petroleum in India;

(2) The Rules provide for the grant of licenses and leases in respect of land vested in a State Government by that State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government and JTI and ACL will apply for a Lease to carry out Exploration Operations, Development Operation and Production Operations in that area onshore identified as Field Amguri and more particularly described in Appendix-A and Appendix-B.

(3) Rule 5 of the Rules provides for an agreement between the Central Government and the Lessee containing additional terms and conditions with respect to the lease;

(4) The Government desires that the Petroleum resources whi