No Section 9 protection is warranted after debarment is reaffirmed on reconsideration.

The petitioner held a contract to collect user fees at three fee plazas on NH-766 in Karnataka for the period 4 October 2025 to 4 October 2026.

NHAI alleged that the petitioner’s personnel collected cash from road users at Yeddore Fee Plaza while recording the corresponding vehicles as “Exempted” in the Toll Management System.

After show-cause proceedings, NHAI’s communication dated 2 September 2026 terminated the contract, imposed a one-year debarment, levied a penalty and ordered forfeiture of the performance security.

The petitioner sought reconsideration; following a hearing, NHAI reaffirmed its decision by letter dated 7 October 2026.

In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner sought protection against action pursuant to the termination communication.

At the hearing, counsel stated that the bank guarantee had been encashed and that debarment was the only issue remaining.

1. Whether any protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 remained necessary after NHAI reconsidered and reaffirmed its decision, where the petitioner stated that only debarment remained in issue.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim relief against the respondents’ action pursuant to the communication dated 2 September 2026.

The Court considered Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers a court to grant interim measures in aid of arbitration.

It held, on the circumstances before it, that once the challenged debarment decision had been reconsidered on the petitioner’s representation and reaffirmed, there remained nothing requiring protection under Section 9.

The Court noted that NHAI had reconsidered the petitioner’s challenge to the termination, forfeiture and debarment and had reaffirmed its earlier decision by letter dated 7 October 2026.

The petitioner’s counsel also stated that the performance-security bank guarantee had been encashed and that debarment was the only remaining issue.

In light of the reaffirmed decision and the circumstances presented, the Court concluded that no matter remained for which interim protection under Section 9 was required.

It dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending application.