1. Intercontinental Hotel Group (India) Private Limited (‘IHG’) – appellant herein, being aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court (Court No.16), Ahmedabad, in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, has filed the present appeal.

2. The appellants and the respondent entered into an agreement for running a hotel of international standard at Sapath-V, S.G.Road, Ahmedabad. The parties had entered into a management agreement. It is dated 19.8.2008. It was agreed upon that respondent would construct / build hotel as per the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. The said hotel was to run in the name of Hotel Crown Plaza – said to be brand standard of the appellants. Under the agreement, appellants were to run and manage the hotel for 20 years. Agreement had also clause for renewal and extension of period. Mode of sharing the profit / income was also agreed upon between the parties. It was agreed that all the disputes arising out of the agreement shall be referred to Singapore International Arbitration Centre. On 8.4.2013, the respondent had terminated the agreement entered into with the appellants. The appellants had moved City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, as stated above, by filing CMA No.430 of 2013. The said Court had passed order dated 8.8.2013 had rejected the appellants’ application. Hence, the present appeal.

3. In CMA No.430 of 2013, from which present appeal arises, the appellants have prayed as under :

“(a) Injunction restraining the opponent from operating and managing the hotel either on its own or by transferring operational management rights to any other third party until such time disputes arising out of the agreement dated August 19, 2008 are finally adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal under terms of the agreement;

(b) Injunction restraining the opponent from interfering with the operation and management of the hotel by the applicant as provided under the agreement until such time disputes arising out of the agreement dated August 19, 2008 are finally adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal under terms of the agreement.

Alternatively,

(c) Injunction restraining the opponent from directly or directly using or permitting any third party from using applicant’s marks, system, brand standards and intellectual property or like interest until such time disputes arising out of the agreement dated August 19, 2008 are finally adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal under terms of the agreement.

(d) Directing the opponent to pay cost of the present proceedings to the applicants;

(e) Pass such further or other orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The findings of the learned trial court may be summarized as under :

(a) The say of the applicants/appellants, ‘...IHG’s role to construct and design was restricted to providing recommendation and feedback in accordance with its brand standard which were not implemented by the consultant....’ gives impression that suggestions, recommendations and brand standard of the applicants were ignored and not implemented on number of occasions by the opponent.

(b) On visual comparison of the photographs, it appears that it is not comparable in any manner with any of the similar aspects of the other Crown Plaza Hotel. The Court refers the comparison of interior upholstery, design of lobby, rooms, bathrooms, fittings, cutlery and outer facade.

(c) The Court found that the present hotel is not a replica or is not a similar in any manner compare to any hotel of the Crown Plaza - as alleged by the appellants.

(d) Prima facie statement of the opponent that opponent is not utilizing any system of the applicants or any intellectual property rights belonging to the applicants is “believable”

and “trustworthy.”

(e) Say of the opponent that applicants, though required, did not make any value addition in terms of conceptualization, design and any other respect whic