Interim protection in arbitration refused where rectification disputes were remitted to arbitrators and damages were an adequate remedy.

Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused in a dispute over repair, rectification and performance of a plant. The Court noted that contested issues such as denial of an opportunity to rectify defects and whether conversion from tubular to plate type was required were matters for the arbitral tribunal. It held that the petitioner had to show a prima facie case for interim relief, but the contract contemplated rectification by another agency if the petitioner did not act within a reasonable time. The Court also observed that the contract was not specifically enforceable and that any loss could be compensated in damages, so injunctive relief was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the respondent from engaging another agency or otherwise directing protection of the plant pending arbitration.

Analysis: The dispute involved contractual obligations relating to repair, rectification, and performance of the plant. The Court held that the merits of the parties' competing contentions, including whether the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to rectify defects and whether conversion from tubular to plate type was necessary, were matters for the arbitrators. For interim relief, the petitioner had to establish a prima facie case, and the contract itself contemplated rectification by another agency if the petitioner did not act within reasonable time. The Court also noted that the contract was not specifically enforceable and that any loss could be compensated in damages.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish entitlement to interim protection under section 9, and the request for injunctive relief was rejected.

---