An injunction that impedes infrastructure progress is impermissible under the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to contract terms.

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral CM APPL. 1612/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) (COMM) 4/2026, CM APPL. 1611/2026 (Stay), CM APPL.

1613/2026 (Permission to file lengthy list of dates)

3. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant submitted that package No. VIII qua which the dispute has arisen is a part of Delhi-Mumbai National Expressway which is not only an ambitious project of the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as „NHAI‟) but will also serve the purpose of infrastructure development and increasing the connectivity between the two metropolitan cities.

4. Apprising the Court about the requisite facts, he submitted that the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 37 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act of 1996‟), assailing the order dated 02.01.2026 (hereinafter referred to as „impugned order‟) passed by learned Single Judge while hearing application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.

5. While reserving his right to support the legality and propriety of the notice of intention to terminate contract dated 23.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as „Subject notice‟) and unravel the conduct of the respondent- contractor, to cut the long story short, he at the outset submitted that while keeping in mind the scope of interference by this Court against an interlocutory order, he would confine his arguments to the legality of the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, whereby, as an interim relief, the court has restrained the appellant-NHAI from acting upon the subject notice till the next date of hearing.

6. For the aforesaid purpose, he invited court’s attention towards para 10 of the order under consideration and underscored that even the respondent- contractor itself has issued a notice of intention to terminate the contract dated 18.12.2025 alleging that the NHAI has failed to make contiguous land available for construction of road and argued that when the respondent- contractor itself wanted to get the contract terminated, the court ought not to have injuncted the present appellant from proceeding in furtherance of the subject notice dated 23.12.2025.

7. He submitted that if the interim order continues and the appellant- NHAI is restrained from terminating the contract, the appellant would be deprived from engaging any other contractor to complete the work and such position would be against the national interest as the ambitious infrastructure project would not be completed within the scheduled timeline.

8. While pointing out that out of the entire road of 794 kilometres, most of the road (about 700 kilometres) has been constructed, he gave an alternative suggestion that till the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 is decided, the encashment of surety bonds and bank guarantees be stayed, so that the rights of the respondent-contractor are protected.

9. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-contractor [(applicant) in the application under section 9 of the Act of 1996] advanced elaborate arguments and contended that the subject notice issued by the NHAI on 23.12.2025 is illegal and arbitrary. While accepting the fact that the contractor had also issued a notice of termination dated 18.12.2025, he argued that the subject notice issued by NHAI is a counterblast to the notic