ABN AMRO BANK Vs. SASWATA SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated January 4, 2000, passed by the learned judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby in the course of an application filed before him under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he issued an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant herein from disposing of the vehicle in question till the next date.

(2.) The only ground urged before us today by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant while assailing the impugned order is that the learned court below had no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order because there did not exist any arbitration agreement between the parties and in the absence of any arbitration agreement between the parties, the application under Section 9 of the Act was not maintainable and therefore the court below should not have taken cognizance of any such application, nor should it have passed an order of the aforesaid nature.

(3.) We have been taken through the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act before the court below and we find that the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is correct because in the application itself there is no mention whatsoever, nor any murmur or even a whisper about the existence of any arbitration agreement between the parties. Actually after we had gone through the copy of the application under Section 9 of the Act, we felt bewildered as to why, in the absence of any arbitration agreement did it occur to the respondent-petitioner to invoke under Section 9 of the Act and to move an application under that provision for any relief. It is an undisputed proposition of law that Section 9 of the Act can be invoked or made applicable by a petitioner only if, between the parties, an arbitration agreement exists and it is only in furtherance of the objectives contained in the said arbitration agreement that a party can approach the court and ask for any one of the reliefs as may be permissible on the merits of the case on the terms indicated in Section 9 of the Act. Undoubtedly, if there is no arbitration agreement between the parties, Section 9 is not at all applicable nor can it be attracted in any situation. Why did the petitioner-respondent therefore in the first place choose to invoke Section 9 of the Act is not at all understandable nor has the learned advocate for the respondent-applicant been able to explain as to why did the applicant do so in the court below. That is one aspect of the matter.