Broad arbitration clause and interim injunction carve-out did not exclude confidentiality and IP disputes from arbitration.

A foreign-seated arbitration reference under Part II was treated substantively as an application under Section 45 despite being filed under the wrong provision, because the pleadings satisfied the statutory requirements. The presence of additional defendants who were not parties to the arbitration agreement did not justify retaining the suit in civil court where the core dispute arose from the contract containing the arbitration clause. A carve-out preserving interim injunctive relief did not exclude confidentiality and intellectual property disputes from arbitration, as the clause remained broad enough to cover disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement. Waiver or abandonment of arbitration was not established merely because a separate civil suit had been filed and later withdrawn.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application was liable to be rejected because it was moved under the wrong provision when the case attracted Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the suit could be retained in civil court on the ground that some defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement and the subject matter could not be bifurcated. (iii) Whether the dispute concerning confidentiality and intellectual property rights fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause because of the carve-out for injunctive relief. (iv) Whether the defendants had waived or abandoned the arbitration clause by filing a separate civil suit.

Issue (i): Whether the application was liable to be rejected because it was moved under the wrong provision when the case attracted Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The governing statute was held to be the foreign-seated arbitration regime under Part II, Chapter I. A wrong heading in the cause title did not control the substance of the request. The pleadings satisfied the requirements of Section 45, and that provision did not insist on a formal application in any particular form.

Conclusion: The objection based on the wrong provision was rejected, and the request was treated as one under Section 45.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could be retained in civil court on the ground that some defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement and the subject matter could not be bifurcated.

Analysis: The reasoning in Sukanya Holdings was examined, but the Court held that the plaint, in substance, concerned disputes arising from the agreement containing the arbitration clause. The presence of additional parties did not defeat reference where the core controversy remained within the contractual framework and the non-signatory issue was not sufficient, on the facts, to keep the entire dispute in court.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-joinder of parties to the arbitration agreement was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the dispute concerning confidentiality and intellectual property rights fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause because of the carve-out for injunctive relief.

Analysis: Clause 29.5(a) was construed as preserving the right to seek interim injunctive relief and not as excluding such disputes from arbitration. The arbitration clause was wide enough to cover all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement, including disputes relating to trademarks, copyright, confidentiality, and threatened infringement. The carve-out did not narrow the substantive scope of arbitration.

Conclusion: The dispute was held to be arbitrable and within the sweep of the arbitration clause.

Issue (iv): Whether the defendants had waived or abandoned the arbitration clause by filing a separate civil suit.

Analysis: Waiver or abandonment was not established. The application invoking arbitration had been pressed throughout, and the later civil suit had been withdrawn while asserting that the controversy was covered by the arbitration clause. The Court distinguished precedents where a party had itself elected to proceed only in civil court and thereby abandoned arbitration.

Conclusion: No waiver or abandonment of the arbitration agreement was proved.

Final Conclusion: The disputes arising from the agreement were referable to arbitration, and the civil action could not be retained despite the interim injunctive issues and the additional parties arrayed in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A broadly worded arbitration clause covering disputes arising out of or in connection with an agreement is not excluded by a clause preserving interim injunctive relief; such a carve-out does not truncate the substantive scope of arbitration, and waiver of arbitration is not established merely by a later withdrawn civil suit.

---