Section 9 interim protection requires a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, or restraint fails.

Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss. The Delhi HC found that the petitioner failed to meet this threshold because the agreement to sell had been extended only once, the extended period had expired without further renewal, and surrounding circumstances, including the changed status of the land and the parties' conduct, weakened the claim for restraint. The Court held that the contractual time stipulation could not be ignored on these facts, and rejected the request to restrain alienation of the suit land pending arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by restraining alienation of the suit land pending arbitration.

Analysis: Interim relief under section 9 required the petitioner to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss if injunction was refused. The agreement to sell had been extended only once, and the extended period had expired without further extension. The surrounding circumstances, including the change in the land's status following judicial orders and the parties' conduct, indicated that the petitioner had not shown a sufficiently strong case for protection. The Court also held that the contractual time stipulation could not be ignored in the facts of the case, and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the necessary entitlement to injunction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to interim injunction under section 9, and the request for restraint order was rejected.

---