Section 9 interim protection requires injunction principles, and disputed contracts not clearly enforceable will not be protected.

The High Court appeal was held competent because the firm had not been shown to be dissolved; it had only been reconstituted, and the partner who acted was part of the original contracting firm, so the later re-registration in the same name did not defeat standing. Interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused because the nature and enforceability of the agency arrangement and power of attorney were disputed matters for arbitration, and the agreement was not shown to be clearly specifically enforceable at the interlocutory stage. Section 9 relief was treated as governed by established principles for interim injunctions and equitable interim protection, including the limits reflected in the Specific Relief Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the High Court was incompetent on the ground that it was filed by the re-registered firm and not by the original contracting firm; (ii) Whether interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be granted in aid of the disputed contract, and whether the power under Section 9 is controlled by the principles governing interim injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the High Court was incompetent on the ground that it was filed by the re-registered firm and not by the original contracting firm.

Analysis: The firm had not been shown to have been dissolved. It had only been reconstituted from time to time, and the partner who represented it in the High Court was admittedly a partner of the original firm and a party to the contract. The later registration in the same name was treated as a mistake that did not alter the identity of the contracting firm or deprive it of standing to maintain the appeal.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected and the appeal filed before the High Court was held to be competent.

Issue (ii): Whether interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be granted in aid of the disputed contract, and whether the power under Section 9 is controlled by the principles governing interim injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The validity and effect of the agency agreement and power of attorney, including whether the arrangement was co-terminus with the mining lease or merely a fixed-term agency, were treated as matters for the arbitral tribunal. At the interlocutory stage, the position was not clear enough to justify specific enforcement or continuation of the arrangement by injunction. The Court also indicated that Section 9 relief is not outside ordinary equitable principles and must be tested on well-recognized criteria for interim injunctions and interim protection, including the limits created by the Specific Relief Act.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant interim protection was upheld and no injunction was granted under Section 9.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the request for interim relief, the High Court's order was left undisturbed, and the parties were left to have the substantive disputes resolved in arbitration; the Court also constituted the arbitral forum by appointing a sole arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to be exercised on established principles governing interim injunctions and interim protection, and a disputed contractual arrangement that is not clearly specifically enforceable at the interlocutory stage will not ordinarily be protected by injunction.

---