Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case is between Essar Bulk Terminal Limited (Appellant) and Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (Respondent), decided by the High Court of Gujarat on 03-02-2022, involving First Appeals against an order passed by the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) .
• Parties and Relationship: Essar Bulk Terminal Limited (EBTL) manages a captive jetty for ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited (AMNS), whose steel plant is owned by AMNS; EBTL was previously a group company of Essar Steel India Limited (ESIL), which was taken over by AMNS (!) (!) (!) .
• Contractual Framework: The parties executed a Principal Agreement (2011) relating to cargo handling charges, amended several times, including the Third Amendment Agreement (2013) and Fourth Amendment Agreement (2013) which introduced a "Dollar Tariff" payable at a specific base exchange rate (USD 1 = INR 54.2190) effective after EBTL drew its first tranche of dollar loans (!) (!) (!) .
• Dispute on Dollar Tariff: The EBTL drew the first tranche of dollar loans in December 2020 and demanded payment of the Dollar Tariff based on the 2013 exchange rate. The AMNS refused to pay, claiming the agreement was "onerous" and challenging the exchange rate, while the Commercial Court directed payment based on the December 2020 exchange rate (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Dispute on Channel Depth: The AMNS sought an interim measure directing EBTL to maintain a channel depth of 10 meters below the chart datum at all times to facilitate vessel navigation. The EBTL argued it was only obligated to maintain a minimum terminal draft of 10 meters and that dredging to 10 meters below chart datum was not an express or implied obligation (!) (!) (!) .
• Commercial Court's Order: The Commercial Court passed an interim order directing AMNS to pay the Dollar Tariff (using the December 2020 exchange rate) and directing EBTL to maintain a channel depth of 10 meters below chart datum. The order was restricted to operate for three months or until the arbitral tribunal decided Section 17 applications, whichever was earlier (!) (!) (!) .
• EBTL's Appeals: EBTL appealed, arguing the Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 9 by mandating a specific channel depth (10 meters below chart datum) which was not an express obligation, and by modifying the agreed exchange rate in the contract, violating party autonomy (!) (!) (!) .
• AMNS's Appeals: AMNS appealed, arguing that the Court erred in directing payment of the Dollar Tariff as it amounts to specific performance of the contract, which should be left to the arbitral tribunal, and also contested the exchange rate used (!) (!) .
• Legal Principles on Section 9: The Court reiterated that Section 9 is for interim measures to protect rights pending arbitration and is subject to the Specific Relief Act; courts must exercise restraint and cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 once constituted (!) (!) (!) .
• Natural Hedge Concept: The Court analyzed the "natural hedge" intent behind the Dollar Tariff agreement, noting that it was meant to offset currency risk, not to create a windfall for one party, supporting the view that the arbitral tribunal should decide the final enforceability and rate (!) (!) .
• Channel Depth Relief Analysis: The Court held that directing EBTL to maintain a channel depth of 10 meters below chart datum by way of an interim measure overlooked the balance of convenience and imposed a continuous obligation not clearly established as an express term, thus exceeding the scope of Section 9 (!) (!) (!) .
• Exhaustion of Section 9 Remedy: The Court clarified that once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked under Section 9 and the remedy is exhausted, similar interim measures cannot be claimed before the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 to avoid simultaneous orders on the same cause of action (!) (!) (!) .
• Final Decision: The High Court allowed the First Appeal by EBTL (No. 3040 of 2021) to the extent it quashed the direction to maintain a channel depth of 10 meters at all times, while dismissing the other appeals, leaving the substantive dispute on the Dollar Tariff for the arbitral tribunal to decide (!) (!) .