Binding arbitration agreement not shown from an initialled draft and correspondence, so interim relief under Section 9 failed.

An initialled draft memorandum of understanding and surrounding correspondence did not establish a concluded contract because the document remained subject to circulation, member approval and final execution, and the communications showed the proposal was not yet finalised. On that basis, no binding arbitration agreement or operative arbitration clause was proved, so the foundation for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was absent. The fact that Section 11 proceedings were said to be pending did not alter the finding that no enforceable contract had been shown for Section 9 relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the basis of an initialled draft memorandum of understanding and the surrounding correspondence, when no signed and concluded contract had been executed and the existence of a binding arbitration agreement itself was disputed.

Analysis: The draft memorandum of understanding had not been signed by both sides and the correspondence showed that the document was still subject to circulation, member approval, and final execution. The communications between the parties also recorded that the proposal was not yet finalised. In these circumstances, the initialled draft could not be treated as a concluded and binding contract. Since the petitioners failed to establish a concluded agreement containing an operative arbitration clause, the foundation for invoking Section 9 was not made out. The Court also noted that proceedings under Section 11 were stated to be pending, but that did not affect the present finding on the absence of a binding contract for interim relief.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to relief under Section 9, as no binding contract or enforceable arbitration agreement had been shown.

---