- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellants have challenged the order dated 22.07.2011 by which the following interim order has been passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad (as addressed at the relevant time). The interim order is as under :-- That interim injunction is granted and affected till the Award, O.P. is directed not to perform such act which is contrary to the rights of the applicants in respect of Development Agreement dated 8.8.2007.
(3.) According the learned counsel for the appellants, the work contract was given to the respondent for which agreement was entered into between the parties on 8th August, 2007. However, according to the respondent, who was applicant before the Court below, a dispute arose because of non-giving of the title deeds of the properties of the appellants to the respondent for obtaining the loan in terms of the agreement which provided that the respondent will be free to take loan and for that the appellant will give the title deeds to the respondent. Because of raising this dispute, the respondent gave a notice to the appellants on 08.05.2009 seeking appointment of Arbitrator. However, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants did not receive such notice. Then on 16.06.2009, the respondent submitted application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and prayed for the interim relief. No ad-interim relief was granted by the trial Court and according to respondent-applicant himself, he gave another notice on 25th October, 2010 seeking appointment of Arbitrator and then on 22.07.2011 the trial Court passed the interim order, after hearing the parties. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the interim order is non-speaking order as no reason has been given so as to constitute any case for grant of interim relief as well as the relief which has been granted, could not have been granted. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the interim order, the appellants have been restrained from taking any action which is contrary to rights of the appellants in respect of the development agreement dated 08.08.2007. Because of this interim order, learned counsel for the appellants submitted, that after 22.07.2011 the appellants could not even proceed to cancel the contract between the parties even for the lawful reasons. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that in the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, the respondent submitted that there is arbitration agreement and he has already served notice for appointment of Arbitrator and will be filing the petition before the High Court for appointment of a designated Judge as an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 but no such petition has been filed for about two years i.e., till the year 2011, therefore, in this fact situation also, the trial Court should not have passed the interim order.;