https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198191 Interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused because the alleged franchise rights were non-exclusive and the agreements expressly preserved the licensors' ability to grant similar rights to others. A later letter could not vary the contract, as it was not signed by both parties and the agreements required written, mutually signed modifications. The court also treated the claimed exclusivity as insufficient to establish a negative covenant, noted that the contract had been terminated, and found that damages would be an adequate remedy. On that basis, no prima facie case or favourable balance of convenience was shown. en-us Mon, 24 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:10:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198191 Interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused because the alleged franchise rights were non-exclusive and the agreements expressly preserved the licensors' ability to grant similar rights to others. A later letter could not vary the contract, as it was not signed by both parties and the agreements required written, mutually signed modifications. The court also treated the claimed exclusivity as insufficient to establish a negative covenant, noted that the contract had been terminated, and found that damages would be an adequate remedy. On that basis, no prima facie case or favourable balance of convenience was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198191