( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 23. 3. 1999 dismissing the application (IA. 1291/99) filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") seeking ad interim temporary injunction staying the two notices of termination dated 19. 1. 1999 issued by the respondent terminating the Technical Know-how Agreement as well as Technical Assistance Agreement, both dated 22. 7. 1994 executed between the appellant and the respondent and also restraining the respondent from executing any fresh contract of similar nature with any third party.

( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge dismissed the appellant s application on the ground that injunction prayed for was statutorily prohibited on conjoint reading of Section 41 and Section 14 (i) (c)-of the Specific Relief Act since the contracts in question were determinable in nature. .

( 3 ) THE appellant s case is that the contracts in question are not determinable in nature as contemplated by Section 14 (i (c) of the Specific Relief Act since there is no clause in the agreement, which permits the respondent to terminate the agreements by giving a notice of a few days. The contracts, which are determinable in nature have always been understood to mean those contracts, which can be put to an end by sending notice simplieitor of a few days. It was contended that contracts in question do not contain such a clause. To the contrary, the contracts in the present case specifically state and recognise that the respondent has granted to the appellant an exclusive license to produce Stroh Bee for a term of seven years, which term was renewable successively for a period of three years at each time. It has also been contended that if the decision rendered by learned Single Judge is taken to be correct law, then in almost all commercial contracts the remedy of injunction would be barred. Another ground urged is that the arbitration proceedings in the present case have to be conducted in accordance with English law and since procedural law is the English Arbitration Act, the same will govern the rights of the parties. Section 48 (5) (b) of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 specifically empowers the Arbitrator to order specific performance of a contract. This aspect was not considered in its right prospective.

( 4 ) TWO agreements i. e. (a) Technical Assistance Agreement and (b) Technical Know-how Agreement were entered into between the parties on 22. 7. 1994 and 7. 10. 1994 respectively. Under clause 9. 1 of the Technical Assistance Agreement and clause 17. 1. of the Technical Know-how Agreement, the parties agreed that disputes, if any, arising under or in connection with the said agreements, if not resolved through friendly consultation within 60 days after the commencement of discussions or such longer period as the parties agree to in writing at that time, the same shall be submitted to the arbitration in accordance with the Rules framed by the International Chamber of Commerce, London, Clause 9. 2. 6 of the Technical Assistance Agreement and Clause 17. 7 of the Technical Know-how Agreement envisage that the governing law for arbitration shall be the laws of England.

( 5 ) THE appellant filed petition (AA. No. 43/99) under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference of disputes mentioned in the petition for adjudication through the process of arbitration, in terms of the aforementioned arbitration agreements between the parties. Simultaneously, an application under Section 9 of the Act for ad interim temporary injunction was also filed. Cause of action is stated to have arisen to the appellant to file the aforementioned applications on the respondent s issuing letter dated 19. 1. 1999 terminating both the agreements on the ground that the appellant had failed to meet the respondent s quality and standards, inconsistent production resulting in frequent. product shortages i