Sri B. Prakash Rao

The appellant herein, who is the petitioner in the Court below, by way ofthis appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (forbrevity 'the Act'), seeks to assail the order dated 05.04.2007 in I.A.No.850 of2007 in O.P.No.338 of 2007 on the file of the Court of First Additional DistrictJudge at Khammam, dismissing an interim injunction application purported to befiled under Section 9 (ii) (d) of the Act, where under the appellant sought anad interim injunction restraining the respondents from deducting any amountfrom the running bills of the appellant in respect of purchase order No.KC-60 &ROC.1030, dated 30.06.2006 unilaterally pending disposal of the main O.P.

2. Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and at their request,the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

3.The appellant herein filed the main application in O.P.No.338 of 2007against the respondents herein with the following reliefs:

"a) to direct the respondents, their employees or anybody claiming through the respondents to record the post - excavated measurements in the presence of representatives of both the petitioner and respondents;

b) further, the respondents, their employees or anybody claiming through them bedirected not to alter the said measurements unilaterally;c)

c) to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents from deducting anyamounts from the running bills of the petitioner unilaterally in respect ofpurchase orders KC-60 and ROC 1030, dtd.30.06.2006 during the pendency of the main O.P.

d) to award costs of this petition;

e) to grant any other relief or relieves as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit andproper in the circumstances."

4. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the appellant is engaged inmanufacture and sale of industrial explosives and accessories and the respondents are M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited, which is a Government Company, floated a tender for supply of SMS/SME explosives and accessories for removal of over burden by the respondents for the period from 01.07.2007 to30.06.2008. Accordingly, after negotiations, the respondents placed a purchaseorder dated 30.06.2006 for supply of specified quantity of the said explosiveswhich contains certain terms and conditions. Later, there had been furthernegotiations and the appellant started supplying the explosives and therespondents had been making payments. However, later, there had been certain minor differences arose due to the alleged survey volume, which resulted intovaried correspondences between them. According to the appellant, the respondentshave unilaterally and arbitrarily started reducing the power factor on the basisof the said survey. This action on the part of the respondents is beingdisputed by the appellant. Since the contract provides settlement of disputesthrough arbitration as per Clause No.18 of the tender document i.e., Annexure P1, the appellant has initiated the process of arbitration proceedings byaddressing a letter dated 27.03.2007 to the first respondent to refer the matterfor arbitration. However, pending disposal thereof, the appellant has filed thisapplication for protecting the interests and thus, sought the aforesaid reliefsin the main application. The main case was filed on 29.03.2007. Along with thesaid application, the appellant has filed the interim injunction application inI.A.No.850 of 2007 by trying to invoke sub-clause (ii) (d) of Section 9 of theAct and sought ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from making anysuch deductions from the running bills unilaterally. This application wasvirtually filed on the same day of filing the aforesaid application underSection 9 of the Act. According to the appellant, the affidavit, which hasbeen filed in support of this application, reiterates the self-same allegationsand complains that any