Arbitration appointment and Section 9 jurisdiction turn on ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.

An arbitration clause supported appointment of an arbitrator where disputes had arisen and both sides accepted recourse to arbitral adjudication; the arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement. Section 9 interim relief, however, lies only before a "Court" within section 2(1)(e), and a High Court qualifies for that purpose only when it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not have such jurisdiction under the applicable framework, it could not entertain the interim-measures application and the request for protection was rejected for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under the arbitration agreement. (ii) Whether the High Court, lacking ordinary original civil jurisdiction, could entertain an application for interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under the arbitration agreement.

Analysis: The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, and both sides accepted that disputes had arisen requiring adjudication by an arbitral forum. The respondents also expressed readiness for appointment of a retired Judge of the Court as sole arbitrator. In these circumstances, the request for appointment under the Act was maintainable.

Conclusion: An arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, lacking ordinary original civil jurisdiction, could entertain an application for interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Section 9 authorises a party to apply to a "Court" for interim protection before, during, or after arbitral proceedings. The term "Court" under section 2(1)(e) includes the High Court only where it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Since the High Court of Andhra Pradesh did not exercise such jurisdiction under the applicable civil court framework, it did not satisfy the statutory definition for section 9 purposes.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under section 9.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded to the extent of appointment of an arbitrator, but the request for interim protection was rejected for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of section 9, a High Court is a "Court" only if it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction; in the absence of such jurisdiction, an interim-measures application does not lie before it.

---