Section 9 arbitration relief depends on intent to arbitrate, but injunctions cannot stop termination of a determinable contract.

An application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be maintained where the agreement contains an arbitration clause and the applicant has otherwise shown an intention to take the dispute to arbitration; prior service of a notice invoking arbitration is not invariably required. However, a contract that is expressly terminable by notice is determinable in nature and is not specifically enforceable under section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. An interim injunction to restrain its termination is therefore barred by section 41(e). The discussed application for interim relief was rejected on that basis, while the applicant was left free to pursue damages in arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant had manifested an intention to invoke arbitration so as to maintain an application for interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether an interim injunction could be granted to restrain termination or cancellation of a contract which was terminable by notice and therefore determinable in nature.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant had manifested an intention to invoke arbitration so as to maintain an application for interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The agreement contained an arbitration clause, and the application itself stated that disputes were referable to arbitration and that interim protection was sought pending arbitration. Section 9 does not require prior issue of a notice invoking arbitration in every case, but the Court must be satisfied that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that the applicant intends to take the dispute to arbitration.

Conclusion: The applicant had manifested the requisite intention to arbitrate, and the objection on maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether an interim injunction could be granted to restrain termination or cancellation of a contract which was terminable by notice and therefore determinable in nature.

Analysis: The agreement expressly permitted termination by either party on not less than one month's notice. A contract of that nature is not specifically enforceable within the meaning of section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and injunction is barred by section 41(e) where the underlying contract would not be specifically enforceable. The authorities relied upon for renewal or specific performance were held distinguishable on the terms of the present agreement.

Conclusion: No interim injunction could be granted to restrain termination of the agreement.

Final Conclusion: The application for interim relief failed, while leaving the applicant free to pursue damages in arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract that is expressly terminable by notice and is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced, and an injunction to restrain its termination is barred under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

---