Proof of a valid arbitration agreement is essential before section 9 relief or arbitrator appointment can be granted.

A valid arbitration agreement under section 7 must be proved by a concluded written instrument supported by reliable execution evidence; where the alleged memorandum was not shown to be duly executed, lacked contemporaneous linkage to the payments, and surrounding records indicated loan transactions rather than a joint venture, no arbitration clause was established. In the absence of that foundational agreement, interim protection under section 9 and appointment of an arbitrator under section 11(6) were unavailable because the court had no jurisdictional basis to grant either remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged memorandum of understanding constituted a valid arbitration agreement under section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether, in the absence of such an agreement, relief under section 9 and appointment of an arbitrator under section 11(6) could be granted.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged memorandum of understanding constituted a valid arbitration agreement under section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The Court found that the alleged document was not proved as a concluded agreement. The payments relied upon were made individually, there was no contemporaneous material linking them to the alleged memorandum, the document produced lacked clear execution particulars, and there was no reliable proof of signatures by all parties or of the time and place of execution. The surrounding material, including tax records, supported the respondents' case that the amounts were advanced as loans rather than under a joint venture arrangement.

Conclusion: No valid arbitration agreement under section 7 was established.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of such an agreement, relief under section 9 and appointment of an arbitrator under section 11(6) could be granted.

Analysis: Since the existence of a binding arbitration agreement was not proved, the Court held that the foundation for invoking interim protection under section 9 and for appointing an arbitrator under section 11(6) was absent. Without a concluded arbitration agreement, the court could not assume jurisdiction to grant the requested reliefs.

Conclusion: Relief under section 9 and appointment under section 11(6) were not available.

Final Conclusion: The appeal and the arbitration application failed for want of proof of a valid arbitration agreement, and the orders refusing relief were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A court can grant relief under section 9 or appoint an arbitrator under section 11(6) only where a valid arbitration agreement in writing, duly established between the parties, is proved to exist; in its absence, neither remedy is maintainable.

---