The court upheld that ongoing arbitration processes require interim protections for a contractor against adverse actions by the railway, emphasizing the importance of contractual compliance and existing precedent.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

When these applications came up for hearing on 20.08.2025, the following order came to be passed by this Court:

“These applications have been filed seeking for the following reliefs :

(a) seeking for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondent from taking any adverse action against the applicant pursuant to the notice dated 30.05.2025 issued by the respondent;

(b) seeking for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondent from taking any steps which would be prejudicial to the rights and interest of the applicant flowing from the Standard Bid Document of Tender No.SR/YSA/02/2024 for provision of Yatri Seva Anubanth (YSA) services for 6 pairs of Vande Bharat Trains of the Southern Railway pursuant to the letter of acceptance dated 15.04.2024 issued by the respondent in faovur of the applicant;

(c) seeking for an order of interim stay of operation of the impugned notice dated 30.05.2025 bearing No.SRHQ0COMM/32/2025 (E.544143) issued by the respondent.

2. The applicant is a railway contractor and engaged in the business of providing YSA services for six Vande Bharat trains operated by the respondent. According to the applicant, arbitrarily and in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent has issued notice dated 30.05.2025 to the applicant threatening to terminate the contract on the ground that services provided by the applicant to the six Vande Bharat trains are unsatisfactory. The applicant claims that only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, they have been providing services to the six Vande Bharat trains and also claims that the passenger feedback given in respect of their services has been impeccable. In support of the applicant's contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant drew the attention of this Court to the passenger feedback recorded by the respondent with regard to the services rendered by the applicant for the six Vande Bharat trains and would submit that the applicant's performance has exceeded the threshold limit fixed by the respondent under the contract awarded to the applicant. The tabular column relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant with regard to the applicant's performance is reproduced hereunder :

3. The threshold limit prescribed under the contract awarded to the applicant is 2.00. As seen from the tabular column, the applicant has exceeded the threshold limit. Relying upon the same, the applicant categorically contends that arbitrarily and in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent issued the notice dated 30.05.2025 to the applicant threatening to terminate the contract. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also submits that earlier, the applicant had approached this Court by filing applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, seeking to protect their interest pending arbitration when the respondent had threatened to terminate the contract on the ground that the applicant did not disclose the pending criminal cases while submitting their tender application to the respondent. In the said applications, earlier, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction in favour of the applicant restraining the respondent from blacklisting the applicant and subsequent to which, the parties have already gone for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the general conditions of the contract applicable to the railway and the arbitral Tribunal has already been constituted and the arbitration is in progress.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that since the respondent may contend that the cause of action for filing these applications