Delhi high court: 2nd application under section 9 of arbitration & conciliation act seeking reliefs already declined in earlier petition between same parties not maintainable

Delhi High Court rules that a second application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, seeking reliefs previously declined in an earlier petition involving the same parties, is not maintainable.

Case Name: DC Multi Modal Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra MMLP Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Coram: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5009 HC | O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 145/2026 | Decided on 01.09.2026

The Delhi High Court has held that a second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reliefs identical to those already declined in an earlier petition between the same parties is not maintainable, while also declining interim relief on merits in a dispute concerning termination of a Concession Agreement for a Multi Modal Logistics Park project.

Background

The petitioner had been granted a Concession Agreement dated 12.12.2023 by the respondent no.1 to design, build, finance, operate and transfer a Multi Modal Logistics Park at Sindi, Nagpur, for a period of 45 years. Phase I of the project was to be completed within 730 days of the appointed date, that is, on or before 10.07.2026. The respondent no.1 terminated the Concession Agreement on 18.09.2025.

The petitioner had earlier challenged the termination in a petition under Section 9 filed on 04.10.2025 (First Petition), seeking a stay on the termination notice and connected reliefs. By order dated 02.12.2025, the Court declined to grant any interim relief and relegated the parties to arbitration, directing that the First Petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act once the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted.

Thereafter, the respondent no.1 issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender for the balance works on 09.10.2025, which culminated in a Letter of Award being issued to the respondent no.2 on 18.03.2026. The petitioner then filed the present, second, petition under Section 9 seeking a stay on the re-bidding process and connected reliefs, in which an interim status quo order was passed on 19.05.2026.

The respondent no.2, upon being impleaded, opposed the petition on the ground that it sought reliefs identical to those already declined in the First Petition, that the petitioner had not effected advance service upon it despite its contact details being on record, and that the petitioner's conduct in waiting until the Concession Agreement with the respondent no.2 was about to be signed before approaching the Court was mala fide.

Findings

The Court compared the prayers in the First Petition and the present petition and found them to be substantially identical, whether in relation to the stay on the termination notice, restraint on the respondent no.1 from acting on the termination, or restraint on engaging a third party for the balance works. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not placed the First Petition itself on record for comparison, and had only filed the order dated 02.12.2025.

Relying on Time Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Venus Infrastructure and Development Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) and National Highways Authority of India v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited (Delhi High Court), the Court held that a second application under Section 9 seeking reliefs already declined in an earlier application between the same parties is not maintainable.

On merits, the Court examined Clause 36.9 of the Concession Agreement, which permits the Authority to engage another contractor to complete the project notwithstanding pending proceedings, while entitling the Concessionaire to be restored to its position if the termination is set aside. The Court held that such restoration operates prospectively, from the date the termination is set aside or the Concessionaire is put back in possession, and that the Concessionaire's remedy for the intervening period lies in damages on general principles, rather than in being treated as having continued the works throughout.

The Court also considered Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bar the grant of an injunction that would impede or delay an infrastructure project, and referred to the observations in National Highways Authority of India (supra) that a party alleging wrongful termination should ordinarily be compensated through an arbitral award rather than through an interim order staying the termination.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had knowledge of the timelines of the fresh tender process, including the issuance of the Letter of Award to the respondent no.2, but did not challenge these proceedings until shortly before execution of the new Concession Agreement. It also observed that the petitioner had not effected advance service upon the respondent no.2, despite the latter's email address being available in the memo of parties, though the Court refrained from passing any further direction on this aspect beyond noting that such practice ought not to be repeated.

The Court accordingly held that the present petition, being a second petition under Section 9 seeking identical relief, was not maintainable and, in any event, did not merit interim relief on the facts. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.1 lakh, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.