However, in Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd.

Case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

prima facie case alone is not sufficient to grant injunction and held that:

"Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the
plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff on
account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable."
Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd. – (2012 ) 6 SCC 792

ection 17 in THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. (1) Unless

otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party,
order a party to take any interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may
consider necessary in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute.

Rule 1 & 2 of 0rder 39 cpc

4 IAs have been filed for interim relief
Plaint under section 7
We have filed A WRITTEN statement under order 8 since there exists an arbitral clause
Section 9 : courts shall try all civil suits unless barred.
Courts have held
that standards prescribed in the CPC would not be applicable to proceedings under Section 9
of the Act and have held that if a party can merely show that it has a good case on merits, it
would be likely to succeed in obtaining an interim relief.
Under Order XXXIX of the CPC, a court may grant temporary injunctions and interlocutory
orders if in any suit, it is proved that any property in dispute is in danger of being damaged
or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
defendant threatens, or is about to remove or dispose of his property with intent to defraud
his creditors. When there is a prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable
injury
Order XXXIX of the CPC provides for temporary injunctions which are akin to the reliefs
under Section 9(ii) (d) and (e) of the Act. The standards to be shown by an applicant under
Order XXXIX in order to successfully secure an injunction are that:
any property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by the
respondent, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or ii. the respondent threatens, or
intends, to remove or dispose of its property with a view to defrauding its creditors, or
iii. the defendant threatens to dispossess the applicant or otherwise cause injury to the
applicant in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.

Various High Courts have taken the view that principles/standards contained in Order
XXXVIII Rule 5 and Order XXXIX mentioned above need not be strictly applied for the grant
of interim measures under Section 9 by a court. Such strict application would defeat the
very purpose of having an alternative mechanism of dispute resolution.

iv. Interestingly in Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.31
(“Adhunik Steels”), the apex court was of the opinion that “well known rules” of the CPC
would have to be kept in mind while granting interim reliefs under Section 9. Therefore, the
principles such as (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable injury
would have to be kept in mind while granting an injunction.32 The apex court stopped short
of stating that specific standards under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
would apply.

In Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Unity Infraprojects Ltd. & Ors 34, the Bombay High
Court held that the court will broadly bear in mind the fundamental principles of Order
XXXVIII Rule 5 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, but at the same time, will have the discretion
to mould the relief on a case by case basis with a view to secure the ends of justice and
preserve the sanctity of the arbitral process. CPC. It has further clarified that the court
should not find itself unduly bound by the text of those provisions rather it is to follow the
underlying principles. Further, relying on the Supreme Court’s finding in Indian Telephone
Industries v. Siemens Public Communication37, the Delhi High Court concluded that though
there is no textual basis in the Act, linking it with provisions of the CPC, nevertheless, the
principles underlying exercise of power by courts in the CPC are to be kept in mind, while
making orders under Section 9.38
The Supreme Court in ITI v Siemens Public Communication44 (“ITI”), held that though there
was no mention of applicability of the CPC to arbitral proceedings in the Act, the provisions
of the CPC could be read in by a court exercising its powers during any proceedings arising
out of the Act.