https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108932 Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss. The Delhi HC found that the petitioner failed to meet this threshold because the agreement to sell had been extended only once, the extended period had expired without further renewal, and surrounding circumstances, including the changed status of the land and the parties' conduct, weakened the claim for restraint. The Court held that the contractual time stipulation could not be ignored on these facts, and rejected the request to restrain alienation of the suit land pending arbitration. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:33:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108932 Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss. The Delhi HC found that the petitioner failed to meet this threshold because the agreement to sell had been extended only once, the extended period had expired without further renewal, and surrounding circumstances, including the changed status of the land and the parties' conduct, weakened the claim for restraint. The Court held that the contractual time stipulation could not be ignored on these facts, and rejected the request to restrain alienation of the suit land pending arbitration. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108932