(1.) THE petitioner initially filed this suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondent. However, vide an Order of this Court dated 12.02.2013, the same was converted into a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking formal amendments relating to conversion of suit to a petition under Section 9 of the Act. Formal replies to the amendment application (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC) as well as the petition and application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC still remains to be filed by the respondent. However, having regard to the nature of urgency explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was in the process of starting competing business in India by 29th March, 2013, despite that the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 30.05.1986 still subsisting between the parties and the petitioner was in the process of invoking arbitration proceedings as per the order of the Supreme Court dated 28.02.2013, and further that the High Court is closing on account of holidays from 24th to 31st March, 2013, I have proceeded to hear the learned counsels for the parties extensively.
(2.) SO far as the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is concerned, it is formal in nature in that only the formal amendments are sought to be made relating to the conversion of the suit to a petition under Section 9 of the Act, (which was in fact, allowed by order of this court), the application is allowed and the amended petition is taken on record.
(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the agreement which was executed on 30.05.1986 was extended, and as per the last agreement of 01.03.2001, the same has come to an end by efflux of time on 31.03.2010. Further since there is no non-compete clause in the JVA or TAA, the respondent could not be injuncted from entering into any joint venture with anyone else.