SHARMA, J. - (1.) MATTER was finally heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellants seek to quash the order dated August 4, 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge Ajmer whereby application of the respondent moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 1996 Act) was allowed and the appellants were restrained from proceeding further in pursuance to letter dated March 2, 2000 and from withholding the amount which is more than the amount payable under contract or Rs. 13,81,706. 20 whichever is less and from making adjustment of amount payable to the respondents under other contracts. Contextual facts depict that the contractor respondent disputing the liability of Rs. 13,81,706. 20 referred in the appellants letter dt. 2. 3. 2000, moved an application u/sec. 9 of 1996 Act seeking interim injunction pending arbitral award. Appellants contested the application by filing reply. Learned court below after hearing the parties allowed the application and issued interim injunction as indicated hereinabove. A bare look at the injunction of the contractor respondent demonstrates that he only made request to restrain the appellants from proceeding further in pursuance to the letter dated March 2, 2000 and making recovery of the amount which according to respondent was not determined so far and to direct the appellants to maintain status quo pending the decision of arbitral award. Grievance projected on behalf of the appellants in the instant miscellaneous appeal is that the relief not asked for by the respondent was granted to him. It was canvassed that the impugned order virtually amounts to a direction to pay the amount to the contractor respondent. An attempt was however made on behalf of the contractor respondent to establish that payment due in regard to another contract can not be withheld in view of Railway Board's decision communicated through letter dated September 6, 1990. Injunctive powers under Section 9 of 1996 Act are confined to matters which are for the purpose of and in relations to arbitration proceedings. Section 9 merely enables the court to grant interim relief in an appropriate case. Judicial discretion should not be exercised by the Court in an arbitrary manner. The court may issue interim order securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, but a direction to make payment of amount is outside the scope of Section 9 of 1996 Act.
(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in H. M. K. Ansari vs. U. O. I. (1), propounded that an order injuncted a party from withholding the amount due to the other side under pending bills in other contracts necessarily means that the amount must be paid. If the amount is withheld there will be a defiance of the injunction order and that party could be hauled up for infringing the injunction order. After having considered the rival submissions and on a close scrutiny of the material placed before me I am of the opinion that learned court below travelled beyond the powers provided to it under Section 9 of 1996 Act. Restraining the appellants from withholding the amount which is more than the amount payable under contract or Rs. 13,81,706. 20/- whichever is less, and from making adjustment of amount payable to the contractor respondent under other contract, virtually amounts to a direction to pay the amount to the contractor respondent. This relief awarded to the contractor respondent by the learned court below was not asked for in the application under Section 9. Consequently, the aforequoted direction is set aside and impugned order stands modified. The appellants are restrained from proceeding further in pursuance to the letter dated March 2, 2000 and shall maintain status quo pending the decision of arbitral proceedings. ;