Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prakash Boolu Kundar, filed an Appeal from Order against the judgment and order dated November 18, 2005 passed by the Joint District Judge, Pune in Arbitration Petition No.960 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent, Shankar Aithu Poojari, had filed the petition seeking interim relief in a partnership dispute concerning the firm 'Durga Restaurant & Bar'. The lower court restrained the appellant from interfering in the day-to-day management of the business and from withdrawing amounts from the firm's account until the decision of the dispute before the arbitrator. The appellant challenged this order on the ground that the arbitrator had already been appointed and the petition under Section 9 was not maintainable. The High Court heard both sides and perused the record. The court noted that the arbitrator was appointed on July 25, 2002, and the Section 9 petition was filed thereafter. The court held that once an arbitrator is appointed, the need for interim relief under Section 9 is obviated because the arbitrator can grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Act. The court found that no urgency was shown to justify the Section 9 petition after the arbitrator's appointment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the civil application was disposed of. The court directed that the arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitration in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintainability after appointment of arbitrator - The court held that once an arbitrator is appointed, the need for interim relief under Section 9 is obviated as the arbitrator can grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Act. The petition under Section 9 was filed after the arbitrator was appointed, and no urgency was shown. The lower court's order restraining the appellant from interfering in management was set aside. (Paras 4-6) B) Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Scope of relief - The court observed that Section 9 is intended for urgent interim relief before or during arbitral proceedings, but not after the arbitrator is already seized of the matter and can pass orders under Section 17. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable after the appointment of an arbitrator, and whether the interim order passed by the lower court was justified.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated November 18, 2005 passed by the Joint District Judge, Pune in Arbitration Petition No.960 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. The Civil Application No.20 of 2006 is disposed of. The arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitration in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- interim measures
- appointment of arbitrator
- maintainability of Section 9 petition after arbitrator appointed
- scope of Section 9 relief
