Interlocutory order in Section 9 proceedings is not appealable when it merely adjourns interim relief and leaves merits open.

An order that merely adjourns a Section 9 interim application and declines further restraint at that stage, without finally deciding the controversy or conclusively affecting substantive rights, is not a judgment. Such a purely interlocutory step lacks the finality needed for an appeal and is not appealable under the Delhi High Court Act, the Letters Patent, or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal was therefore not maintainable, and the merits of the Section 9 proceedings remained open before the Single Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order adjourning the Section 9 application and declining further restraint at that stage was a judgment or appealable order.

Analysis: The order merely postponed hearing on the interim application and recorded that no further restraint was being granted at that stage. It did not decide the rights in controversy, did not conclude any stage of the proceedings, and lacked the traits of finality required for a judgment. An interlocutory order of this kind is not appealable under the Delhi High Court Act, the Letters Patent, or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was treated as a purely interlocutory step in pending Section 9 proceedings, leaving the merits open before the learned Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: An order that merely adjourns consideration of an interim application and declines further relief at that stage, without finally deciding the controversy or conclusively affecting substantive rights, is not a judgment and is not appealable.

---