14 February 2022 | Zostel Hospitality (P) Ltd v. Oravel Stays (P) Ltd | | OMP (I) (Comm) 290/2021 | C Hari Shankar J | Delhi High Court | 2022 SCC OnLine Del 455

The Delhi High Court has declined a petition for interim relief, filed after the award, noting that when exercised at a post-award stage, Section 9 ACA is meant to protect the fruits of the arbitral award and to ensure that the award is not rendered incapable of enforcement [citing Dirk India 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 4811 and Hindustan Construction (2020) 17 SCC 324].

The court found that the award only declared that Zostel was entitled to seek specific performance of a term sheet and, thus, bring a suit for specific performance. The tribunal itself did not direct specific performance because the parties had not finally consented to the terms of the agreement.

The court, therefore, declined to grant any relief premised on the argument that the tribunal had directed specific performance. It rejected the argument that the arbitrator could never have intended Zostel to file a fresh suit.

The court also rejected the argument that a new suit would be barred by Section 8 ACA or Section 47 CPC.

Mayawanti (1990) 3 SCC 1 was distinguished because, in that case, the form of the agreement annexed as a draft to a memorandum of understanding was not open for negotiation and, thus, was a concluded contract.

Read the decision here.