M/S. ROYAL ENTERPRISES Vs. SAMUHIK CHIKITSALAY SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and perused the impugned order dated 6-1-2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2 Ajmer dismissing the appellant-applicant's (hereinafter 'the applicant's) application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1996')

(2.) The applicant was awarded a contract on 16-6-2015 for supply of man power to the non-applicant Samuhik Chikitsalaya Sangh Superintendent Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Sangh'). The contract provided under clause 47 for an arbitration of disputes arising therefrom between the contracting parties. The Sangh vide communication dated 10-11-2015 terminated the contract. The applicant resorting to clause 47 of the contract dated 16-6-2015 moved an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking injunction against the aforesaid order dated 10-11-2015. That was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6-1-2016 by the trial court on a finding that no prima facie case was made out for the applicant, nor balance of convenience obtained in its favour. Resultantly the issue of irreparable loss to the applicant from the order dated 10-11-2015 was redundant. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for appellant has submitted that the court below has dismissed the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 by reason of a misdirection in law inter alia for the applicant not having impleaded the State Government as a party to the application nor having at the relevant time taken steps for invoking arbitration proceedings in terms of the clause 47 of the agreement dated 16-6-2015. It has been submitted that steps for arbitration proceedings qua the disputes inter alia arising from the termination dated 10-11-2015 have since been taken on 22-9-2015 by resorting to Section 11 of the Act of 1996 by an application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court on failure of the respondents, despite the notice dated 2-9-2015 to appoint an arbitrator and refer the disputes arising under the contract dated 16-6-2015 to him. It was further submitted that the trial court failed to take into consideration the facts before it wherefrom it was evident that no breach of contract could be attributable to the applicant and hence the termination of contract on 10-11-2015 was wholly arbitrary and malafide.