Hero Wind Energy Limited v. Inox Renewables Limited (Delhi High Court). Decided on July 7, 2020.
Facts of the case:
Inox Group of companies developed a wind park in a district of Rajasthan called Jaisalmer. The wind park comprises of many wind farms and wind turbine generator installed which is owned by different entities. The hero wind energy private limited who is the applicant in this case owns one of the wind farms in the wind park, in 2014 entered into a three inter alia agreement with Inox group. All the 3 agreements contained identical arbitration clauses.
The hero wind energy limited sent a notice to the companies owned by the Inox group as they were at default resulting in stopping of wind turbine generator on the farm which eventually lead to revenue loss. They demanded compensation of four core. Later on, February 9, 2018 Hero sent a notice since the Inox company invoked clause 20.2 of the agreement which demanded for arbitration and hero invoking the arbitration called upon the company to appoint an arbitrator within the time limit of thirty days.
In May 2018, Hero filed a petition to initiate proceedings against the company to hand over the claims of operation and maintenance agreement. Upon the establishment of an arbitral tribunal withdraws the application. Hero got a notice to one of the companies of Inox group while the proceedings were going on in order to terminate the operation and maintenance agreement and further gave Hero full control over the software which is the wind turbine generator and handed over the possession of the site of the project to Hero. After termination both parties tried to decide an amount for taking over infrastructure which are shared. Both parties could not yield any result and Hero then initiated proceeding against the company of Inox group of companies.
Issue of the case:
The issue in this case was whether the remedy of approaching the court for the interim measures with respect to disputes arising from the set of agreements or same agreements is barred by Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or not.
The decision of the court:
When this matter came to court the counsel, who appeared for the appellant said that the dispute which arose now is different from that arose earlier and further said that the sane tribunal should not look into it. The respondents in this case said that disputes which comes under Section 9 and application is filed it. The court held that we must not mix it with Section 9. Further, the court said that the disconnection of Feeder 14 was after the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. The appellant said that disputes arising from the same agreement with separate causes of action are akin to independent suits. The court accepted this argument and rejected the view of a single-judge bench.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.