- (1.) The Court :- AP No. 78 of 2012 (SBPL Infrastructure Ltd.-Vs. - India Media Pvt. Ltd.) was filed by the appellant herein. In the said arbitration petition an application was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (hereinafter to be called as the 'said Act'), for interim relief by the appellant in view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 5th December, 2005 (nomination agreement). The appellant made the following prayers in the arbitration petition at page 60 of the application being G.A. 2524/2016. "Your petitioner therefore most humbly pray Your Lordships for following orders- a) Injunction restraining the respondent from acting in a manner inconsistent with the agreement dated 5th December, 2005 by transferring the said property and more fully described at paragraph 58 in any form whatsoever including by way of transfer of shares of the respondent Company. b) A receiver/special officer be appointed and submit a report as to the nature character and occupancy of the property and therefore taken symbolic possession of thereof. c) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above; d) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
(2.) The said application under Section 9 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding inter alia that the scope of Section 9 of the 1996 Act is in pari materia with the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and any relief granted thereunder is discretionary in nature. In view of the averments made in paragraph 55 of the application an undertaking was given by the petitioner to relinquish the claim for possession. Therefore, having regard to such claim for possession over the property made in the arbitration proceeding relief could not be granted in the application on the question of jurisdiction inasmuch as the subject property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Learned Trial Court held that in the instant case the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and since protection of such property was sought, this Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit or any proceeding in which possession of such immovable property was sought. In case no possession is sought and the relief claimed is simply for enforcement of the agreement of sale, then the suit can be entertained even if the property situates outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but according to the learned Single Judge this was not the case in the arbitration petition. Therefore, Section 9 application was not entertained and dismissed without any relief.
(3.) From the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge it appears that prayer under Section 9 has been altogether rejected only on the question of jurisdiction.;