Arbitration scope and interim relief limits prevent mandatory allotment of disputed work before adjudication.

A dispute is referable to arbitration only if it arises within the scope of the written arbitration agreement and the tender conditions; a claim for immediate allotment of additional timber extraction work, based on alleged custom or assurances outside the contract, fell outside that scope and could not be compelled to arbitration. Interim powers in aid of arbitration are limited to ancillary measures and cannot be used to grant substantive mandatory relief that effectively decides the dispute; a direction permitting execution of the contested work was therefore beyond jurisdiction. The appeal succeeded, the reference to arbitration was rejected, and the interim relief was vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contractor's claim for immediate allotment of the remaining timber extraction work was covered by the arbitration agreement and the tender conditions so as to be referable to arbitration; (ii) Whether the Court could grant an interim mandatory direction allowing execution of the disputed work pending arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether the contractor's claim for immediate allotment of the remaining timber extraction work was covered by the arbitration agreement and the tender conditions so as to be referable to arbitration.

Analysis: The arbitration clause extended only to disputes in respect of the work to be executed under the existing agreement. The tender condition expressly stated that extension for additional volume available in the coupe could not be claimed as of right, but only considered by management when achievement was 100%. The claim before the Court was not merely for consideration of future allotment but for immediate allotment of additional work, and the asserted foundation of custom, practice, and assurances was outside the written agreement. As no dispute had arisen under the agreement in relation to a vested contractual right to the additional work, the matter was not one that could be compelled to arbitration under the clause invoked.

Conclusion: The claim was not referable to arbitration and the order of reference was unsustainable, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could grant an interim mandatory direction allowing execution of the disputed work pending arbitration.

Analysis: The power under the arbitration statute to make interim orders was confined to measures ancillary to arbitration, such as preservation, custody, inspection, injunction, or receiver-type relief, and could not be used to grant substantive relief that effectively decides the very dispute referred. A direction permitting the contractor to execute the disputed extraction work went beyond preservation and had the effect of granting final relief before adjudication, thereby defeating the arbitration process.

Conclusion: The interim mandatory order was beyond jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the reference to arbitration was rejected, and the interim relief granted by the High Court was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute is referable to arbitration only if it arises within the scope of the written arbitration agreement, and the court's interim powers in aid of arbitration cannot be used to grant substantive relief that extinguishes the arbitral controversy.

---