Section 9 interim restraint refused where no privity, no enforceable liability, and no credible risk to enforcement were shown.

Interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was found unwarranted where the alleged commission claim arose from a separate agreement with another entity, while the helicopter supply contract was independently negotiated and contained no agency or intercession arrangement. The prior agency agreement had also become void on cessation of the principal's activity, and no binding supply contract existed on that basis. Relief was further declined because the respondent, being a state-owned undertaking with substantial assets, posed no credible enforcement risk and the requested restraint was treated as akin to attachment before judgment without the exceptional justification required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner established a sufficient basis for interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; whether there was privity of contract or liability binding the respondent for the alleged commission claim; and whether restraint orders against payment and delivery of the helicopters were warranted.

Analysis: The claimed commission arose from an agreement with a different Russian entity, while the supply to the Government of India proceeded under a separate contract negotiated independently by the respondent. The helicopters, quantity, and contractual context were materially different, and the respondent's contract with the Ministry of Defence expressly prohibited any agency or intercession for procurement. The agency agreement itself provided that it would become void on cessation of the principal's activity, and by the time the earlier entity had merged and ceased to function, no binding supply contract had come into existence. Relief was also declined because the respondent was a state-owned undertaking with substantial assets, so no credible risk to enforcement was shown, and the prayer resembled an attachment before judgment without satisfying the basis for such exceptional interim restraint.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to interim injunction or other protective relief against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on merits and the interim restraints were vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief under Section 9 may be refused where the claimed liability is not shown against the respondent, the underlying contract is distinct, and no sufficient basis exists for extraordinary restraint over payment or property.

---