MFA 55/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. AB Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S Dey, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, BSNL. The subject matter of the instant appeal is the order dated 03.05.2008, passed b y the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 1 29/2008, rejecting the appellant’s prayer for injunction as a temporary measure under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereaft er referred to as the ’Act’). The appellant had prayed for such a restrain on t he respondent/BSNL from proceeding with the exercise initiated by the tender not ice dated 02.02.2008, 22.02.2008 for executing the residual works envisaged unde r agreement No. 198/WO/GHED/2000-2001, allegedly left undone by them. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had filed an application (regis tered as M.C. No. 1405/2008), praying for an interim order to injunct the respon dents from allotting the remaining work under the aforementioned agreement pursu ant to the impugned tender process. In their affidavit-in-opposition to the said application, the respondents, have in categorical terms stated on oath that the impugned tender notice dated 02.02. 2008, 22.02.2008 and 28.04.2008, have since been cancelled. Further, as the sub sequent advertisement dated 12.05.2008, also did not meet with any positive resp onse, no decision has yet been taken on the issue and that therefore, the cause of action for the proceeding under section 9 of the Act is presently non-existen t. Evidently, the petition under the aforementioned provision of the Act, has been filed before the learned Court below by the appellant on the apprehension that p ending the arbitration/conciliation proceeding bearing on the repudiation of the contract under which they had undertaken to execute the works involved, if the tender process initiated by the respondents for getting executed the remaining w orks is finalized, it would suffer irreparable harm and prejudice. The learned trial Court having rejected the prayer for injunction from pursuing that process as a temporary measure, the appellants being aggrieved is before this Court. In face of the clear and unambiguous sworn statements made by the respondents in their affidavit in M.C. No. 1405/2008, referred to hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, the very basis for the apprehension, as the foundation of the pro ceedings under section 9 of the Act in praesenti is non est. In that view of the matter, no further order in this appeal, on merits, is calle d for. It stands disposed accordingly. Needless to say, this determination would not come in the way of the appellants to pursue their remedy available in law, before the appropriate forum, if a caus e of action in future justifies the same. No costs