The main legal point established is the recognition of urgency in interim relief and the direction for an expeditious hearing before the learned Arbitrator.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `1996 Act') seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Pass an interim order staying the effect of the Termination Letter dated 11.05.2023 until such time the disputes arising out of the Agreements are finally adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted;

b. Pass an interim order restraining the Respondent, their employees, officers and agents from interfering in any manner with the Petitioner's performance of its services in terms of the AMC and of the Petitioner's possession of the Land;

c. Pass an interim order restraining the Respondent, their employees, officers and agents from alienating or creating any third-party rights on the Land situated at Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi-110024 until such time the disputes arising out of the AMC are finally adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal so constituted;

d. Pass an interim order directing the Respondent to forthwith withdraw its bouncers/goons posted at the Land and permit the Petitioner to perform its services as provided under the Agreements;

e. Pass ad-interim ex parte order in terms of prayer clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) above;

f. Award costs of the instant Petition in favour of the Petitioner;

g. Pass any other order(s), direction(s) or relief(s) in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."

2. Disputes between the parties have arisen with respect to various Agreements entered into and executed between them for provision of healthcare services in the premises of the Respondent including managing centres for diagnostics, nuclear medicine, pathology, radiology, etc. Triggered by the termination notice, the present petition was filed seeking interim protection till the disputes are decided by the Arbitral Tribunal envisaged under the Dispute Resolution Mechanism incorporated as a part of the Agreements, whereby any claims, disputes, questions or controversies involving the parties and arising out of or in connection with the Agreements or execution, interpretation, validity, performance, breach or termination thereof are to be referred for arbitration as per the 1996 Act.

3. On 15.05.2023, this Court had directed that till the next date of hearing, the termination notice dated 11.05.2023 be kept in abeyance. This order granting interim relief to the Petitioner was assailed by the Respondent before the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 111/2023. The Division Bench passed the following order on 29.05.2023:

"CAV 272/2023

As learned counsel appears for the caveator/respondent, caveat stands discharged.

CM APPL. 27395/2023

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 27397/2023

This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking permission to file lengthy list of dates.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Lengthy list of dates are taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2023 & CM APPL. No. 27394/2023

1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated May 15, 2023 in OMP (I) (COMM) 150/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge while considering the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act of 1996', for short) has directed, the letter dated May 11, 2023, (which is a letter of termination of the agreement by the appellant) shall be kept in abeyance.

2. We find that next date of hearing before the learned Single Judge is July 31, 2023.

3. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned, Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the ground on which the learned Single Judge has stayed the;/termination order is clearly unsustainable and the effect thereof is that the appellant is required