HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.R.P.No.3898 of 2011 & C.M.A.No.1406 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Since the issue involved in both the matters is one and the same, and the parties in both the matters are also one and the same, both these matters are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.3898 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02-06-2011 dismissing the application in I.A.No.319 of 2011 in I.A.No.2370 of 2010 in A.O.P.No.461of 2010 on the file of the District Judge. The petitioner filed the said I.A. under Order IX Rule 7 to set aside the ex parte order dated 11-11-2010 passed in the interim injunction application i.e. I.A.No.2370 of 2010 in A.O.P. No.461 of 2010 setting him ex parte filed by the 1st respondent herein restraining the petitioner from appointing a dealer for Kasibugga retail out-let in Srikakulam District Item No.307 in the daily news-paper Sakshi, dated 06-09-2010 pending disposal of the main O.P. 3. C.M.A.No.1406 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 29-11-2010 in I.A.No.2370 of 2010 in A.O.P.No.461 of 2010 on the file of District Judge, Srikakulam, granting ex parte interim injunction as the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 herein remained ex parte. By the said order, temporary injunction was granted restraining the petitioner herein, its men and agents from appointing a dealer for Kasibugga retail outlet Item 307 in daily news-paper Sakshi, dated 06-09-2010, pending disposal of the main petition. 4. The undisputed facts are that the 1st respondent herein filed A.O.P.No.461 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity ‘the Act’) on 22-10-2010 to set aside the award of the sole arbitrator as the said award is illegal, incompetent, arbitrary and volatile of the statutory provisions of the Act and against the principles of natural justice and to restore the dealership agreement in his favour and to award consequential loss sustained by the claimant due to the illegal cancellation of the dealership agreement. Pending disposal of the said O.P., the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.2370 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein from appointing the dealer for Kasibugga outlet in Srikakular District at Item No.307. 5. It is stated that the 1st respondent herein was appointed as a dealer for the retail outlet of the petroleum products and the petitioner-Corporation cancelled the said dealership agreement for violation of the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement. As agreement entered under arbitration clause, the dispute referred to ‘Arbitration’ in terms of the agreement and Sole Arbitrator was appointed, who is the 3rd respondent herein, and the 3rd respondent- Arbitrator passed an award on 25-07-2010, upholding the termination. Aggrieved by the said order of the Arbitrator, the 1st respondent filed the said A.O.P. to set aside the award and also to restore the dealership agreement and the consequential loss sustained by the 1st respondent herein due to the alleged illegal cancellation of the dealership agreement. 6. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the reliefs claimed before the court below for the restoration of the dealership and the consequential loss sustained by the claimant due to the cancellation of the dealership agreement. 7. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Court below is justified in granting interim injunction. 8. Section 9 of the Act provides enabling the parties to approach the Court before, or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court. When there is a specific provision under Section 9 of the Act, and both the counsel appearing for the parties fairly realize and concede that injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable, more so, particularly, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sree Jain Swetambar Tera Panthi Vid (S) Vs. Phudan Singh and others[1], and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that he may be permitted to avail the remedy by filing fresh petition under Section 9 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Judge under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the OP is illegal and without jurisdiction. When the order itself passed by the Court below granting interim injunction is illegal and without jurisdiction, the Court below ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the ex parte order in the interim injunction application. Hence, both the petitions are deserve to be allowed. 9. In the result, we allow both the C.R.P.No.3898 of 2011 and C.M.A.No.1406 of 2011. Accordingly, the impugned orders, passed in I.A.No.319 of 2011 in I.A.No.2370 of 2010 in A.O.P.No.461of 2010 dated 02-06-2011 and in I.A.No.2370 of 2010 in A.O.P.No.461 of 2010, dated 29-11-2010, on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, stand set aside. However, we make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition seeking any relief under the relevant provisions of the Act. In the event of filing any such petition, the concerned Court, after hearing both sides, shall consider the same, uninfluenced by any of the observations made either by the Court below or by this Court. As it is stated that it will take some more time to approach the very concerned Court under section 9 of the Act, we direct both the parties to maintain status quo for a period of ten days from today. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Dated: 16-12-2011 _____________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO kvr [1] (1999) 2 S.C.C. 377 para 12