TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE LTD Vs. SAMIR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is admitted for hearing. The appellant is aggrieved of an order dated 13.1.2000 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court Xth Bench, Calcutta whereby, in a pending application filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned trial Court had granted an expert ad-interim injunction against the appellant and in favour of the respondent restraining the appellant from seizing and/or taking possession of the vehicle forming the subject matter of the aforesaid petition, on the terms contained in that order.

(2.) The sole ground urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant against the aforesaid order is that the learned Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 9 of the 1996 Act and therefore, on that ground alone, it had not jurisdiction whatsoever to pass any interim order. The argument is that no petition under section 9 (supra) was maintainable because of the total absence of any Arbitration Agreement existing between the parties. A copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement between the parties has been filed along with the stay application. We have perused the same and found that indeed it does not contain any arbitration clause. It is thus the admitted case of the parties that there does not exist any Arbitration Agreement between the parties with regard to the subject matter of the aforesaid petition under section 9 (supra).

(3.) Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relates to the grant of interim measures by the Court. The very opening part of the sanction reads thus: