Section 9 interim relief lies before the Principal District Court, not a subordinate civil court, under the Arbitration Act.

For interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, "Court" means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district, read with the CPC and the General Clauses Act, so a subordinate civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Andhra Pradesh High Court therefore treated the First Additional Junior Civil Judge as an improper forum for section 9 protection and held that interim relief must be sought before the Principal District Court. The custody direction allowing retention of vehicles was set aside for want of jurisdiction, while the referral to arbitration was maintained and the party was left free to seek interim protection from the competent court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge had jurisdiction to grant interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the expression "Court" in section 2(1)(e) refers to the Principal District Court. (ii) Whether the direction allowing the respondent to retain possession of the vehicles and the related interim arrangement could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the court of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge had jurisdiction to grant interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the expression "Court" in section 2(1)(e) refers to the Principal District Court.

Analysis: The definition of "Court" in section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was read with the meaning of "district" in section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and "District Judge" in section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On that construction, the expression refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. The distinction between "judicial authority" in section 8 and "Court" in section 9 supported the conclusion that interim measures under section 9 lie before the principal district court and not any inferior civil court.

Conclusion: The court of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge was not the proper forum for section 9 relief, and the Principal District Court was the competent court.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction allowing the respondent to retain possession of the vehicles and the related interim arrangement could be sustained.

Analysis: Once the competent forum for interim relief was held to be the Principal District Court, the interim arrangement made by the lower court could not stand. The direction referring the parties to arbitration, however, was not interfered with because section 8 contemplates reference by a judicial authority where an arbitration agreement exists. The respondent was left free to seek interim protection from the District Court.

Conclusion: The interim custody direction was set aside, while the reference to arbitration was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of correcting the forum for interim relief and setting aside the unauthorized custody arrangement, leaving the arbitral reference intact.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, "Court" means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district, so interim relief must be sought before the Principal District Court and not a subordinate civil court.

---