An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (ORAL)

1. These matters with the consent of parties were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. ARB. A. (COMM.) 73/2022 is an appeal preferred by the appellant Corporation under Section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [the Act] and assails the validity of the order dated 14 October 2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 206/2022 is a petition preferred by the claimant seeking enforcement of the aforesaid order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The order of 14 October 2022 has undisputedly been passed on an application made by the claimant/respondent purporting to be under Section 17 of the Act.

That application was preferred by the claimant seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue directions that the Respondent should maintain a status quo with respect to the subject matter of the instant arbitration between the two parties and not issue a letter of award pursuant to the fresh tender No. 2022/IRCTC/BNR/RANCHI floated for the BNR Ranchi Hotel.

ii) Pass any other or further consequential order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent."

3. As would be evident from a perusal of the reliefs which were claimed, the respondent had sought the issuance of a direction commanding the appellant Corporation to maintain status quo with respect to the subject matter of arbitration and to not issue a letter of award pursuant to the fresh tender notice which had been published for running and administering the BNR Hotel [the Hotel] at Ranchi. The claimant had also prayed for orders consequential to the above and as may have been deemed fit and proper by the Arbitral Tribunal in the facts of the case. In order to appreciate the challenge which stands laid at the behest of the appellant Corporation, it would be pertinent to notice the following undisputed facts.

4. By a letter of 27 December 2006, the appellant Corporation is stated to have awarded a sub-license to the respondent for the purposes of redeveloping, operating, maintaining and transferring the Hotel. On 12 May 2007, a sub-license/concession agreement came to be executed between the parties for and in connection with the aforesaid purposes. The Hotel premises are stated to have been handed over to the claimant on 14 May 2007. As per the concession, the sub- license was granted for a period of fifteen years and was to thus expire on 13 May 2022. The claimant is stated to have made a representation on 10 June 2020 for extension of the period of contract on account of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was asserted that the pandemic had adversely impacted the business of the claimant and caused huge losses and therefore the requirement of the term of the sub-license being extended proportionately.

5. By a letter of 06 April 2022, the appellant Corporation granted the claimant the benefit of the residual period of 163 days beyond the expiry date of the sub-license of 13 May 2022. The sub-license agreement consequently stood extended up to 23 October 2022. The claimant, however, questioned the computation of the residual period. In the meanwhile, the appellant Corporation is stated to have floated a fresh tender for operation and maintenance of the Hotel on expiry of the concession period on 23 October 2022.