IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Arb.A.No. 9 of 2008() ----------------------------- OPARB.11/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. AJITH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, CHACKALAKAL HOUSE, ALUVA, EDAYAPPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NET WORK, ALUVA. 2. SOJA AJITHKUMAR, W/O.AJITH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, CHACKALAKAL HOUSE, ALUVA, EDAYAPPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NET WORK, ALUVA. 3. K.G.SATHEESAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN, KUDILINKAL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. XVII/224, CHACKALAKAL HOUSE, ALUVA, EDAYAPPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NET WORK, ALUVA. 4. SAROJINI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.GOPINATHAN, CHACKALAKAL HOUSE, ALUVA, EDAYAPPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NET WORK, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN ARBA. 9/2008 RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SANTHOSH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, KAIPPALATHIL HOUSE, EDAYAPPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK-PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NETWORK, ALUVA. 2. ANILA SANTHOSH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH, KAIPPALATHIL HOUSE, EDAYAPPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK-PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NETWORK, ALUVA. 3. RAMESH BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHATTUPADAM HOUSE, S.N.PURAM, ALUVA THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA TALUK, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NETWORK, ALUVA, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NETWORK, ALUVA. 4. USHA RAMESH, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.RAMESH BABU, CHATTUPADAM HOUSE, S.N.PURAM, ALUVA THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA TALUK, PARTNER IN GLOBAL VISION, T.V.NETWORK, ALUVA. THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- Arb.A.No.9 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellants filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for an interim order by way of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from transferring the documents pertaining to the partnership business of Global Vision Cable T.V. Network, Aluva and also restraining the respondents from interfering with the conduct of the partnership business and for appointment of a receiver. The above application was rejected. The District Court dismissed the application, but, found that in order to seek remedy under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there should a bona fide dispute between the parties and parties must have initiated arbitration proceedings or intending to initiate arbitration proceedings. The District Court also noticed that even if no arbitration proceedings are started, if there is a bona fide intention to start arbitration proceedings, section 9 can be invoked. But, the District Court found that application under section 9 was filed on 9.2.2007. Even after one year no real steps for arbitration were made. That shows that there was no bona fide intention for the appellants to start arbitration proceedings. An Interim order cannot be obtained after Arb.A.9/2008 2 keeping the matter pending for a long time. Apex Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. ((1999) 2 SCC 479) considered the matter and observed as follows: “If an application is so made, the court will first have to be satisfied that there exists a valid arbitration agreement and the applicant intends to take the dispute to arbitration. Once it is so satisfied, the court will have the jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 9 giving such interim protection as the facts and circumstances warrant. While passing such an order and in order to ensure that effective steps are taken to commence the arbitral proceedings, the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 can pass a conditional order to put the applicant to such terms as it may deem fit with a view to see that effective steps are taken by the applicant for commencing the arbitral proceedings. What is apparent, however, is that the court is not de debarred from dealing with an application under Section 9 merely because no notice has been issued under Section 21 of the 1996 Act.” In view of the long delay in initiating the arbitration proceedings, District Court found that at the time of filing the application appellants had no real intention to start arbitration proceedings and the application was dismissed. We see no ground to interfere in the above order. It is submitted that after filing of this appeal and after adjournment of the appeal posted for admission, an arbitration Arb.A.9/2008 3 request was made as Arbitration Request No.9 of 2008. This order will not preju0dice the appellants in filing fresh petition according to law. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks