Arbitration clause bars writ relief in a contractual dispute, while limited status quo protection may continue temporarily.

A contractual dispute governed by an arbitration clause was not taken up under Article 226, as the writ court found that the parties should pursue the agreed dispute-resolution mechanism instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner could seek appointment of an arbitrator and, if required, interim relief before the competent civil court under the arbitration framework, subject to any leave requirement arising from liquidation proceedings. To preserve the subject matter and the existing security arrangement, the court continued interim status quo protection for a limited period while the petitioner was allowed time to approach the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in a contractual dispute governed by an arbitration clause and pending liquidation proceedings, and whether interim status quo protection should continue for a limited period to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

Analysis: The dispute arose from contractual obligations under an agreement that contained a specific arbitration mechanism. In that setting, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and indicated that the petitioner should seek appointment of an arbitrator and, if necessary, move the competent civil court for interim relief under the arbitration law. The availability of such recourse was noticed as being subject to the leave requirement under the insolvency law. Considering the petitioner's stated need for time to initiate the appropriate proceeding and the earlier interim protection already operating, the Court found it to preserve the status quo in respect of the securities and performance guarantee for a short period.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits under Article 226, but limited interim protection was granted for two months to maintain the existing position and enable the petitioner to pursue the agreed dispute-resolution forum.

Final Conclusion: The matter was finally disposed of with only temporary preservation of the existing contractual security arrangement, while leaving the parties to pursue arbitration-linked remedies in the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute is essentially contractual and the parties have agreed to arbitration, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised, though short-term interim protection may be granted to preserve the subject matter while the aggrieved party approaches the contractual or statutory forum.

---