Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By the way of the present petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the petitioner seeks to restrain the respondent purporting to terminate and/or acting in pursuance of the purported termination of the Services and Supply Agreements for the 400KV D/C Teesta III – Kishanganj Transmission Line (Tower Package – A1 & A2) that were entered into between the petitioner and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the contracts”).

2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the Contract was entered into between Respondent (“TPTL”) and a Consortium between M/s Abir Infrastructure Private Ltd. (“Petitioner”) and M/s Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. (“DCIL”). The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on behalf of the said Consortium of Deepak Cables India Limited and Abir Infrastructure Private Limited (DCIL-AIPL).

3. The Contracts were entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for the construction of the 400 KV D/C Transmission Line from the 1200 MW TEESTA III Hydro Electric Project in the State of Sikkim to the Kishanganj Pooling Station in the State of Bihar covering a total length of approximately 212 KM (“Project”). The Contracts were executed on 22nd February, 2010. The respondent was required to complete its scope of works within 23 months i.e. until October, 2011 from the date of award of the contracts i.e. 18th November, 2009.

4. The Project was divided into two sections for geographical convenience, the section stretching from Teesta III HEP to Panighata, West Bengal (termed as “Package A1”) and the second section commencing from Panighata to Kishanganj, Bihar (termed as “Package A2”). The scope of work of the petitioner in respect of each package was divided into two agreements being the Supply Agreement termed as A1/01 and A2/01 and Service Agreement termed as A1/02 and A2/02. The consideration payable to the petitioner by the respondent in respect of the Supply and Services Agreement of A1/01 and A1/02 was Rs.108,39,99,596/- (Rupees One Hundred and Eight Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Six only) and Rs.117,41,06,487/- (Rupees One Hundred Seventeen Crores Forty One lakhs Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Seven only) respectively. The consideration for Supply and Services Agreement for Package 2 i.e. A2/01 and A2/02 was Rs.54,97,41,980/- (Rupees Fifty Four Crores, Ninety Seven Lakhs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty only) and Rs.36,72,49,555/-(Rupees Thirty Six Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Five only) respectively. The total value of the project was Rs.360,61,00610/-.

5. The contract in question was terminated by the respondent by letter dated 30th May, 2014 alleging that termination was forthwith. It was terminated under clause 36.2 of the contract. The present petition was filed on 31st May, 2014 seeking to pass interim orders restraining the respondent from terminating the contract or giving effect to third party rights being created. The case of the respondent is that termination itself was w.e.f. 30th May, 2014 and the work was already awarded to third party on the same day. The petition filed by the petitioner is therefore not maintainable.

6. Notice was issued for 6th June, 2014. On that date, parties were directed to maintain status quo as per order passed by the vacation Judge.

7. It has been stated in the petition that as per the contracts, it was the foremost obligation of respondent to provide/assist the petitioner in obtaining Right of Way (ROW) so as to enable the petitioner to carry out its obligations under the contracts, however respondent No.1 has failed to do so and as a result of the same, the completion date of the contract i.e. 16th October, 2011 has been consistently and continuously delayed and even till date performance under the contracts is not complete. The respondent