Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Radiant Info Systems Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the 28th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in A.A.No.25006/2016, which rejected the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Act for interim relief. The appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), for supply of certain goods/services. Disputes arose between the parties, and KSRTC terminated the contract and invoked bank guarantees furnished by the appellant. The appellant filed an application under Section 9 seeking interim injunction restraining KSRTC from encashing the bank guarantees and from recovering any amounts. The learned trial court dismissed the application, holding that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the trial court's order, noting that the appellant had an alternative remedy by way of arbitration and that the balance of convenience was not in favor of granting interim relief. The court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Interim Relief - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Prima Facie Case - The appellant sought interim injunction against KSRTC from encashing bank guarantees and recovering amounts under a contract - The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in its favor, as the contract had been terminated and disputes were to be resolved by arbitration - The appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending arbitration proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the Section 9 application.
Law Points
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- interim relief
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (02) 5
K. Arun Kumar for M/s. Crest Law Partners for Appellant, P. Dhananjaya for P.D. Surana for Respondent
Radiant Info Systems Limited
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against rejection of Section 9 application for interim relief.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought interim injunction restraining KSRTC from encashing bank guarantees and recovering amounts under a contract.
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by the trial court's order dated 30.06.2016 rejecting its Section 9 application.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the Section 9 application on 30.06.2016 in A.A.No.25006/2016.
Issues
Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that it had a strong prima facie case and that balance of convenience was in its favor.
Respondent argued that the contract was validly terminated and that the appellant had an alternative remedy by way of arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi
For grant of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and irreparable injury. In this case, the appellant failed to establish these elements, and the trial court's order was not interfered with.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – Radiant Info Systems Ltd., against the Respondent-KSRTC aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned Court below under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.A.No.25006/2016 (Radiant Info Systems Ltd., vs. KSRTC), by which, the learned Court below rejected the application of the appellant under Section 9 of the Act for interim relief.
Procedural History
The appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the 28th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, which was dismissed on 30.06.2016. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 37(1)(b)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 43
