Hon’ble High Court held that, the Court:
(i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions
(ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view,
(iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary conclusion,
(iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and
(v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals.
The Hon’ble Court further held that it is well settled and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 209 SC that on a harmonious reading of 9(1) and 9(3) of the Arbitration Act the Court is not denuded of its power to grant interim relief when an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted. What the Court has to examine is if the Applicant has an efficacious remedy under Section 17 or that circumstances exist, which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 of the 1996 Act efficacious.