Case Comment On SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corpn. V. Power Mech Projects Ltd. (2021)

Case Comment On SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corpn. V. Power Mech Projects Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 792

Ankit Rai, BA LLB (Hons.) student at Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow

Introduction

The complex interplay between national courts and Arbitral Tribunals introduces an ambivalent dimension, particularly concerning the judicial control exerted over arbitration awards. Section 91 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) empowers a party not only to seek reliefs or interim measures before or during arbitration proceedings but also after the arbitral award, prior to its enforcement. To invoke the court's authority under Section 91 of the Act, the party must establish three crucial principles: a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss in the absence of relief.

The Bombay High Court, in the seminal case of Dirk India (P) Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd., delineated the scope of post-award Section 9 remedies. The court asserted that interim relief post-award is permissible solely for the enforcement or safeguarding of the arbitral award. These observations received endorsement from the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India.

The significance of post-award Section 9 relief becomes pronounced considering the statutory three-month period within which the award debtor may challenge the award. It is crucial to note that the court, under Section 9, lacks the authority to stay the arbitration award; such prerogative lies with the award debtor under Section 36(2)4 of the Act.