Interim injunction for alleged exclusivity denied where franchise agreements were non-exclusive and damages were an adequate remedy.

Interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused because the alleged franchise rights were non-exclusive and the agreements expressly preserved the licensors' ability to grant similar rights to others. A later letter could not vary the contract, as it was not signed by both parties and the agreements required written, mutually signed modifications. The court also treated the claimed exclusivity as insufficient to establish a negative covenant, noted that the contract had been terminated, and found that damages would be an adequate remedy. On that basis, no prima facie case or favourable balance of convenience was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the basis of an alleged exclusive franchise arrangement and an alleged negative covenant.

Analysis: The agreements of 27 October 1997 granted only non-exclusive rights and expressly reserved the licensors' freedom to grant similar rights to others. The later letter of 23 March 1998 was not signed by both parties and, in any event, could not override the contractual clauses requiring any variation to be in writing and signed by both parties. The mere use of the word "exclusively" did not, by itself, create a negative covenant. In addition, the contract had been terminated, damages would be an adequate remedy if the petitioner succeeded before the arbitral tribunal, and granting the injunction would effectively amount to specific performance of a contract of a kind that was not enforceable by injunction.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or a favourable balance of convenience, and interim injunction was not warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary injunction will not be granted to enforce an alleged exclusivity clause or negative covenant where the underlying agreement is non-exclusive, any variation was not validly executed, the contract has been terminated, and monetary compensation is an adequate remedy.

---