On 7 August 2026, Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the High Court of Delhi allowed an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in National Highways Authority of India v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd, Arb. A. (Comm.) 57/2026. The Court set aside an ad-interim order by which an arbitral tribunal had directed status quo — ex parte and without recorded reasons — in a dispute arising out of a terminated highway construction contract. The judgment restates a discipline that applies to tribunals no less than to courts: interim relief requires a hearing where feasible, and always requires reasons.
Background: a terminated EPC contract
The National Highways Authority of India awarded an engineering, procurement and construction contract in January 2024 for a section of an eight-lane expressway in Gujarat. Disputes over performance followed, and successive attempts at settlement in 2024 and 2025 did not resolve them. Termination notices issued in June and December 2025 culminated, after court proceedings, in termination of the contract in January 2026. In July 2026 the Authority issued a show cause notice proposing to declare the contractor a non-performer and to debar it — the step that triggered the interim relief application before the arbitral tribunal.
The order under challenge
On 30 July 2026 the tribunal, acting on the contractor\'s application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, granted ad-interim protection directing status quo — without hearing the Authority and without recording reasons. The Authority appealed to the High Court under Section 37(2)(b), which provides an appeal against orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17.
What the High Court held
The Court found the order unsustainable on its face. As the judgment records, the impugned order "is without any reasoning and no urgency or prima facie case is even considered." Two defects were decisive.
No hearing
The tribunal granted protection ex parte without affording the Authority an opportunity to be heard, in circumstances where the urgency justifying that course was not examined in the order.
No reasons
The order contained no reasoned findings on the principles that govern interim relief — prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm — and so could not be tested or sustained.
Rather than substituting its own view on whether protection was warranted, the Court set aside the ad-interim order and remitted the question to the tribunal: pleadings were to be completed by 11 August 2026, both parties were to be heard on 12 August 2026, and the Court made clear it would countenance no adjournment of that date. The tribunal was left free to decide the application independently on its merits.
The wider point for arbitration users
Since the 2015 amendments, an order of a tribunal under Section 17 is enforceable in the same manner as an order of a court. With that power comes the corresponding discipline. This judgment aligns tribunal practice with what courts require of themselves when granting ex parte injunctions: urgency must be demonstrated and addressed, the classic trinity of injunction factors must be considered, and the reasoning must appear in the order itself. An unreasoned direction — even one as seemingly innocuous as "status quo" — can have serious commercial consequences, particularly where, as here, debarment from public procurement was in play.
For parties resisting such orders, the decision confirms that Section 37(2)(b) offers a prompt remedy, and that the High Court will intervene where the tribunal\'s order does not disclose the minimum judicial reasoning. For parties seeking urgent protection, the lesson is to place before the tribunal, and invite it to record, the specific facts constituting urgency and the elements of a prima facie case — or risk winning an order that does not survive appeal.
The High Court\'s decision concerns the manner in which interim relief was granted and does not adjudicate the underlying contractual disputes, which remain before the arbitral tribunal. This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an arbitral tribunal grant interim relief without hearing the opposite party?
A tribunal has wide powers under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but this judgment shows that an ex parte direction unsupported by reasons and by any consideration of urgency or a prima facie case is vulnerable. The Court set aside precisely such an order and required the tribunal to hear both sides before deciding afresh.
What must a tribunal consider before granting interim measures under Section 17?
The same principles that govern interim injunctions: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, along with the urgency said to justify immediate relief. The order must record reasons showing these factors were considered; a bare direction to maintain status quo does not meet that standard.
Is an appeal available against an interim order of an arbitral tribunal?
Yes. Section 37(2)(b) of the Act provides an appeal against an order of the tribunal granting or refusing an interim measure under Section 17. That is the route the Authority took in this case, and the High Court exercised the power to set the order aside.
Does setting aside the interim order decide the underlying dispute?
No. The High Court was careful to send the question of interim protection back to the tribunal, directing completion of pleadings and a hearing on a fixed date, with the tribunal to decide independently on the merits. The setting aside addresses only the manner in which the first order was made.