AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 260 wordsVijay Kumar Shukla, J
In the instant appeal filed under section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short 'the Act'), 1996 the appellant has challenged the order dated 15.09.2025 by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of ex-parte ad interim relief under section 9 of the Act has been dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that termination of the contract of the petitioner was contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract. He has filed an application under section 9 of the Act seeking preservation of subject matter as he apprehends that some work is likely to be allotted to third person which may cause damage to the subject.
Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the Court has issued the notices and next date for hearing on the interim relief is fixed on 27.09.2025 but ex-parte ad interim relief was rejected.
Considering the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed off with a direction to the Court to take up the matter on the next date or any other date fixed by the Court after service of notice and prayer for interim relief will be decided after hearing both the parties. Till the matter is decided by the Court, status quo as it exists today in respect of the subject matter in question shall be maintained by the parties. However, it is made clear that decision by the trial court on the prayer for interim relief would not be influenced by the interim order passed by this Court.
C.c. as per rules.