- 1 - 75.arbpl.1174.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.1174 OF 2011 Delta Guards Private Limited ..Petitioner -Versus- ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Respondent .......... Mr.Gaurav Joshi a/w. Mr.Darshan Mehta i/b Ms. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr.Cyrus Bharucha, Ms.Vijaylaxmi Kulkarni i/b Nanu Hormasjee & Co. for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 8TH NOVEMBER 2011. P.C. 1 By consent, the petition is heard finally. 2 This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3 The petitioner seeks an order restraining the respondents from acting upon the letters of termination dated 29th July 2011 and 5th October 2011. The parties had entered into an agreement by which the respondent was to provide security services inter alia by deploying the personnel at - 2 - 75.arbpl.1174.11 various sites indicated by the respondent. The respondent is not satisfied with the quality of services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that between 70 to 90 % of the locations have communicated that they were satisfied with the quality of the services. That, however, is not relevant. It is not possible at this stage to decide whether the respondent’s services were satisfactory and in conformity with the agreement. 4 Under clause 7(a) of the agreement, either party can terminate the contract by giving a one months written notice to the other party stating its intention to terminate the agreement and in that case neither party shall be entitled to claim any amount/compensation in respect thereof. Under clause 15(b), the respondent is entitled to terminate the agreement by giving seven days written notice to the petitioner. Thus, prima face at least, under the contract, the respondent was entitled to terminate the agreement before the expiry thereof i.e. before 30th March 2012. It is therefore not possible to grant the interim reliefs. 5 Further, the grant of interim reliefs would virtually decree the entire matter in favour of the petitioner at this stage itself. The agreement comes to an end on 31st March 2012. In any event, therefore, with effect from 1st April 2012, the contract ceases to be in enforce. By granting interim - 3 - 75.arbpl.1174.11 reliefs, the respondent would be able to enforce the agreement for the entire duration. It would not be possible in that event to set the clock back as far as the respondent is concerned if it were to ultimately succeed. On the other hand, the refusal of the interim reliefs would not affect the petitioner in any manner. If it would be entitled to claim damages before the arbitral tribunal. The statements are accepted. 6 The parties have agreed to refer all their disputes and differences between them in respect of the said agreement to the sole arbitration of Ms.Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate of this Court. 7 The petition is therefore dismissed. The present arrangement shall however continue upto and including 18th November 2011. -