Stay of Cure Period Notice maintainable where termination appears premature and malicious despite contract being terminable.

The Petitioner, a concessionaire under an Agreement dated 14.10.2005 for a highway project, sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to stay a Cure Period Notice (CPN) dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Respondent (NHAI).

The Petitioner alleged the CPN was a "counterblast" to a prior arbitral award they won against NHAI and noted that the contract is set to expire on 05.05.2026.

NHAI contended the contract is terminable and that the Petitioner failed to perform Periodical Renewals (PR) on certain road stretches, necessitating third-party intervention for public safety.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interim protection under Section 9 of the Act to stay the operation of the Cure Period Notice pending arbitration.

Whether the Court should appoint an Arbitral Tribunal following the parties' waiver of formal notices under Sections 21 and 11 of the Act.

The court primarily applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which grants the court power to issue interim measures of protection.

It also considered Section 17 regarding the Tribunal's power to grant interim relief and Section 12(2) regarding arbitrator disclosures.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors.* (2024), which emphasizes the sanctity of contracts and the requirement of fairness by public authorities to maintain the integrity of public procurement.

The Court found the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the timing of the CPN (issued less than two months before contract expiry) and the overlap of issues with ongoing conciliation proceedings to be substantive.

It reasoned that because the project involves foreign investment and a statutory body, the balance of convenience favored the Petitioner to ensure contractual fairness.

The Court determined that allowing the CPN to operate would cause irreparable harm by disrupting toll collection, which is the "subject matter" of the agreement.

While acknowledging NHAI's argument that the contract is terminable, the Court clarified that it was not granting specific enforcement but merely preserving the status quo so as not to render the impending arbitral process "nugatory".

By consent, the parties waived Section 21 and Section 11 requirements, and the Court referred the matter to a three-member Arbitral Tribunal to be nominated within two weeks.

The Petitioner is directed not to withdraw ₹94 crores from the Escrow account until the Tribunal hears the matter.

The Section 9 petition was disposed of with a direction that it be treated as a Section 17 application before the newly constituted Tribunal.