MAVERICK MOTORS LLP Vs. ROHIT MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates Mr. Hemanth Rao and Mr. R. Puneeth for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Rukkoji Rao for the appellant and learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.C. Thiruvengadam assisted by learned advocate Mr. B.T. Manik for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 13(1)(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2016, read with Sec. 37(1)(B) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), assailing the order dtd. 3/2/2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.17 of 2024 by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru.

(3.) The appellants filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Sec. 9 of the Act seeking injunctive relief against the respondent. By order dtd. 20/1/2024, the Commercial Court granted an exparte ad interim order restraining the respondent from making unauthorized communications with Eicher Motors Limited, its vendors, or suppliers until the next date of hearing. The interim order was extended from time to time. However, the Commercial Court, by applying Rule 9(4) of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2001'), set aside the interim order and consequently dismissed the petition. The Court held that if arbitral proceedings are not initiated within three months from the date of presentation of an application under Sec. 9 of the Act, any interim order granted shall stand vacated without the necessity of a specific order to that effect.