The court emphasized that under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, it can grant mandatory injunctions when there is a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience favors the petitioner, especially when public interest is at stake.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"], for interim measures of protection in anticipation of arbitral proceedings between the parties under an agreement dated 06.05.2016 entitled "Supply Agreement" [hereinafter, "the Supply Agreement"]. The Supply Agreement was extended twice, by way of amendment agreements dated 24.05.2019 and 14.05.2020.

2. Although several reliefs have been claimed in the petition, Ms. Neelima Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, presses the petition only as far as prayer "a" is concerned, which reads as follows:

"a. Pass an order/mandatory injunction directing the Respondent to issue a no-objection certificate or consent letter for appointment of a new distributor for pharmaceutical products of the Petitioner in Myanmar;"

3. Notice was issued in the petition on 03.06.2022, at which stage, Ms. Tripathi did not press for ex parte ad interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of service dated 01.09.2022, which shows that service has been effected upon the respondent by e-mail, courier and Speed Post. E-mail service was effected on 09.06.2022 from the e-mail address of learned counsel for the petitioner to the email address-nancy.mmhtwe@gmail.com, which is the e-mail address from which correspondence was addressed to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent¹ . Learned counsel for the petitioner has affirmed that the e-mail has not bounced back. Speed Post delivery and courier delivery were effected upon the respondent on 14.06.2022 and 24.06.2022, respectively, at the address mentioned in Clause 16 of the Supply Agreement for service of notice. Printouts of the tracking reports have also been placed on record. Pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2022, by an e-mail communication dated 01.08.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner also informed the respondent of the next date of hearing i.e. 06.09.2022.

4. Despite all these efforts towards service of notice, the respondent has not entered appearance. As sufficient time has lapsed to enable the respondent to enter appearance, the petition is taken up for hearing in its absence.

5. The petitioner is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. The respondent is a company incorporated in Republic of Singapore. By way of the Supply Agreement, the respondent was appointed as the petitioner's distributor for the territory of Myanmar. The respondent had nominated a consignee in the territory of Myanmar namely M/s Biosy's Company Limited [hereinafter, "Biosy's"]. The original term of the Supply Agreement was three years, after which it was extended by way of amendment agreements dated 24.05.2019 and 14.05.2020 for one year each. The Supply Agreement has thus expired by efflux of time on 05.05.2021.

6. The clauses of the Supply Agreement, insofar as they are relevant for the purposes of the present petition, are as follows:

"6. REGULATORY MATTERS