In this case, the Delhi High Court denied a demand by Zostel Hospitality for 7% equity shares in OYO's parent company (Oravel Stays) based on an arbitration judgement. Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd signed a "Term Sheet" with Zostel Hospitality Pvt Ltd and one of its investor-shareholders, Orios Venture Partners, under which Zostel would transfer its hotel business to Oravel and Orios, in exchange for Oravel transferring "identified assets" to Zostel, including 7% of its shareholding.
Following Oravel's defaults, Zostel was unable to acquire Oravel's assets, and an arbitration award was issued against Oravel in March 2021. After the award was issued, Zostel sought interim protection from the high court, claiming that it is entitled to 7% of Oravel's equity shares under the arbitral ruling, and that Oravel could not take any actions, such as launching an IPO, that would delay the award's execution.
In the instant case titled Zostel Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd , the issue raised before the Delhi High Court for clarification was
Whether the party can seek interim remedy after the arbitration award has been issued, in addition to the final relief given in the arbitration award?
With regard to this issue, The Delhi High Court ruled that a party cannot seek post-award interim remedies in excess of what was given in the award. Section 9 provides for grant for interim measure of protection by a court. It is well known that the provision is more often than not invoked at the pre arbitral stage, before arbitral proceedings commence. The Court however, prohibited from revisiting the award's findings or conclusions under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.
The court held:
“That the arbitral award was not a decree for the execution but “merely a decree enabling Zostel to take proceedings for execution” of the arrangement in question and there was no basis for obtaining an injunction against Oravel's IPO flotation and that "the petition is, therefore, dismissed".