( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks the following interim reliefs against the respondents:-

A) pass ad-interim injunction against respondents from appointing and/or awarding and/or contracling and/or assigning and/or allowing any other developer and/or agent and/or dealer to develop and/or run PIZZA HUT outlets in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai other than the petitioner and/or;

B) pass an ad-interim injunction in favour of petitioner and against respondents and/or its officers, employees, and/or agents from preventing and or interfering and/or in any manner obstructing the Petitioner from running the Pizza Hut Outlets at Hyde Park and Gulmohar Road (Juhu) and/or;

C) Pass ad-interim injunction against Respondents from authorizing and/or assigning the trademarks or trade name rights to any other person and for the use in the territory of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai;

D) Pass ad-interim order directing Respondents to deposit the damages with this Hon ble Court or in the alternative to furnish security for the said amounts recoverable and the damages by furnishing Bank Guarantees. "

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are: The respondent No. 1 and its affiliated companies originated and own a distinctive restaurant operation system (the "pizza Hut System"), which they license directly or through affiliates through out the world. Respondent No. l has the exclusive right within India to use and to sublicense the use of the Pizza Hut System. On 27. 10. 1997, three agreements, namely development agreement, Technology Licence agreement and trademark franchise agreement were executed by the petitioner and the respondent No. l, whereunder the respondent No. l granted to the petitioner non-exclusive right to operate 25 PIZZA HUT outlets for the territory of Mumbal and Navi Mumbai. The terms and conditions of the licence were specified in the said agreements. The aforesaid agreements provided for termination of the contract by the respondent No. l on the happening of any of certain specified events. These agreements also provided for adjudication of any dispute or difference of any nature by arbitration. At the time of execution of the agreements, petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 18 lacs to the respondent No. l by way of advance. After execution of the agreements, petitioner selected three sites for operating PIZZA HUT outlets. By the letter dated 23. 3. 98, the respondent No. l communicated to the petitioner about the grant of exclusive right to use Pizza Hut System for the territory of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. On 26. 8. 1998, the respondent No. l finally approved sites and plans of the buildings proposed to be constructed for operating these outlets. However, the schedule for operating the said outlets by 31. 1. 1998 was not adhered to by the parties and the time was extended upto mid 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner started development of three outlets at Hyder Park, Gulmohar Road (Juhu) and Worli in accordance with the development agreement.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner also paid to the respondent No. l a sum of Rs. 38 lacs in terms of the agreements. While the outlets at Gulmohar Road and Hyder Park were to be ready to go into operation in January 1999, the petitioner received a notice dated 14. 12. 1998 terminating the Contract on the grounds specified therein. According to the petitioner, the alleged termination of the contract is illegal. It is also alleged that the contract cannot be terminated with regard to the outlets at Hyder Park and Gulmohar as these outlets were to be ready to go into operation in January 1999 and so they do not fall within the termination clause of the main contract. It is further alleged that since the petitioner was granted exclusive right to use Pizza Hut System in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, the respondents cannot repudiate the contract and grant the said licence to a third party.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. l resisted the