MGF DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of The immediate concern in which the effective order is to be passed is in The main dispute which has arisen between the parties springs from the Litigation Indemnity Agreement (LIA) dated 13.04.2016 confined to ARB-ICA No.3 of 2019 and Warranties Indemnity Agreement (WIA) dated 13.04.2016 confined to ARB-ICA No.4 of 2019 in applications filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures against the respondents due to issuance of letters dated 17.09.2019 giving rise to the present cause of action. This is resisted by the respondents pleading that an injunction should not be issued in favour of the Applicants.

(2.) The jurisdiction in international arbitration commercial disputes to pass orders under section 9 of the Act lies exclusively with this Court is not disputed. The principles applicable in the matter of grant of injunctions in arbitration cases are broadly from the principles drawn from Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the matter of grant of temporary injunctions which are roughly similar through the avenue of section 9 of the Act of 1996 and are to be dealt with in similar fashion. Grant of an injunction or interim measure or its refusal remains guided by the three cardinal and well accepted principles of prudence attaching to courts for consideration at the initial stage of litigation guiding that the three ingredients must reasonably co-exist before any ad interim order issues forth for or against the defendant, a somewhat similar position in which the parties are placed today. Court has also to refrain from making any comment on the merits of the case to avoid any prejudice to the parties or pre-judging the issues. These are the limitations in which the consideration has to take place for passing interim orders of restraint or its refusal.

(3.) Heard at length the Senior Advocates Mr. Akshay Bhan and Mr. Vikas Bahl for the applicants and Mr. Ashok Aggarwal and Mr. Sumeet Mahajan for the contesting respondents on caveat assisted by their respective battery of counsel for final disposal of the cases with consent of parties and without exchanging any further pleadings as are not found necessary.