1 2025:CGHC:4286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBAP No. 4 of 2023 1 - M/s Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Through Its Authourised Signatory, Mr. Madhava Das K, S/o Late P. Raghunath Menon, Aged 63 Years, R/o Flat No. 603, Madurisha Heights, Phrase Ii, Matrikunj Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Gp Ukrgipromez, 17, V I Lenin Naberzhnaya, Kirovsky Region, Dnepropetrovsk 49000, Ukraine 2 - M/s Uralmashpalnt Jsc, Pervoy Pyatiletki Square, Yekaterinburg 620012, Russia. 3 - M// Trafalgar International F.Z.E, Unite No. 422, Block B, Techno Park Jafza, Jebel Ali, Po Box No. 16824, Dubai Uae. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Manay Nath Thakur and Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 3 : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Rakshit Tiwari, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 23/01/2025 1. This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1996”) is filed on the ground that respondents 1 to 3 have entered into consortium agreement dated 08.06.2015 to execute work awarded by SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant in tender No. T&C(M)/B369/1/168R/AKG/277 dated 03.04.20174 for Sinter Plant II (Package No.-1) on turnkey basis as per Technical Specification No. CET/02/RN3377/TS/IR/01/R=5 March, 2014 at 2 Bokaro Steel Plant and handilg over to the Employer. Employer of the aformentioned tender work is SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant. During execution of the work, some dispute arose between petitioner and respondents which made petitioner to file this application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 making following prayer : “(a) Pass an order of an injunction against the Respondents from assisting/ participating in any manner in executing of work or tender in violation of the Article 11 of the agreement dated 08-06- 2015 and share the confidential information of the petitioner with the third party thereby causing irreparable loss to the petitioner; or (b) Enjoin the Respondent from performing the contract without the Petitioner and without terminating the Contract Agreement. (c) The respondent No 1, 2 & 3 may be restricted from using any Data, information & technology while executing the work as per tender dated 26/12/2022 as the work as mentioned in the tender dated 26/12/202 cannot be executed in any manner without using the data, information & technology and other valuable technical assistance provided by the petitioner as per the agreement dated 08/06/2015 (d) grant ex-parte ad interim reliefs in terms of prayers stated above; (e) Any other or further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 3 submits that from the documents enclosed along with the rejoinder filed by petitioner, it is appearing that during pendency of this petition, petitioner has submitted notice for revocation of arbitration under Article 10 of Consortium Agreement dated 08.06.2015. He contended that as notice for refering dispute is recently given as per his information, concerned respondents are in agreement to refer dispute to arbitrator to be appointed with the consent of the parties. 3 3. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal adopted submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 3. 4. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner presses for grant of interim relief as prayed for. During course of argument, he submits that there is already an order of status quo which may be directed to be continued. 5. Submission made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is opposed by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 3 on the ground that as per his information, earlier contract dated 19.06.2015 could not be performed in agreed terms and therefore balance work of Tender No. T&C(M)/B369/1/168R/AKG/277 dated 03.04.2014 for Sinter Plant – II (Package No.-1) was retendered on 26.12.2022 which is also forming part of pleadings of application under Section 9 of the Act of 1966. Balance work has already been retendered and principal employer who has issued second tender for balance work is not party to this application, however, pursuant to order dated 10.05.2024, entire work of second tender dated 26.12.2024 has became stand still. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner contended that there is specific clause under Article 11 of agreement entered into between the parties to maintain confidentiality of information and detail subject matter of agreement between the parties which includes technical information which is in between petitioner and respondents to third party. Agreement clearly provides for period to maintain confidentiality of three years after termination of this agreement. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 3 based on the notice given by petitioner for referring dispute to 4 arbitrator that respondents are in agreement to refer dispute to arbitrator, it will be for the parties to work upon said requirement under the Act of 1996 in accordance with law. 9. So far as the relief as claimed in the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 is concerned, in view of specific clause under the agreement entered into between the parties under Article 11 which reads as under : “11.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, "Confidential Information" shall mean any information or data disclosed by either Party to the other, pursuant to this Agreement, either in writing or otherwise documented, subject to the conditions setforth hereafter, and including without limitation any written or printed documents, samples, models, or any means of disclosing such Confidential Information that the Parties hereto may elect to use during the life of this Agreement, provided that such information or data is marked, stamped- or otherwise designated or identified as Confidential Information. 11.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered as compelling either Party hereto to disclose any Confidential Information to the others.” 10. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to not to disclose details as mentioned in confidentiality clause under Article 11 which is in between petitioner and respondents to third party in terms of Article 11, till the interim application to be filed by petitioner is decided by arbitrator. 11. With the above observation and directions, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Shayna JUDGE Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI