Consensus ad idem is essential for Section 9 interim protection; unsigned, disputed contract terms defeated injunctive relief.

Interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was declined because no concluded and enforceable contract was shown. The correspondence indicated that one party had circulated a signed agreement, but the other never countersigned it and instead sought amendments to material terms, including the deal structure, release sequence, and consideration. The court held that these exchanges did not establish consensus ad idem on the essential covenants, so there was no prima facie basis for specific enforcement or injunctive relief in aid of arbitration. Having found no binding contract, the court did not examine balance of convenience or irreparable injury, and principles relating to unsigned but otherwise concluded contracts were held inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a concluded and enforceable contract existed between the parties so as to justify interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including restraint against dealing with the programs and protection of the alleged contractual rights.

Analysis: The correspondence showed that the respondent had forwarded a signed agreement, but the petitioner never countersigned it and repeatedly proposed amendments to material terms, including the structure of the deal, the sequence of releases and the consideration. The exchanges did not disclose consensus ad idem on the essential covenants of the arrangement. In the absence of a concluded contract, the petitioner could not establish a prima facie case for specific enforcement or for interim restraint in aid of arbitration. Since no enforceable contract was shown to exist, the court found no occasion to examine balance of convenience or irreparable injury for grant of interim relief. The reliance on principles governing unsigned but otherwise concluded contracts was held inapplicable on these facts.

Conclusion: No concluded or enforceable contract was proved, and interim protection under Section 9 was refused.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed at the threshold because the foundational requirement of a binding contractual consensus was absent, leaving no basis for injunctive relief in aid of arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief under Section 9 cannot be granted where the parties have not reached consensus ad idem on the essential terms of the alleged contract and no enforceable agreement is shown to exist.

---