A Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

This appeal arises out of order dated 6.4.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Jorhat in Misc (J) Case No. 96 of 1997 granting temporary injunction in favour of the present respondent Auro Tea Company Private Ltd restraining the appellant Bosabari Tea Estate Private Ltd from transferring the ownership of the Bosabari Tea Estate by sale, lease or by any other means of transfer till final disposal of Title Suit No.51 of 1997.

2. We have heard Shri AK Bhattacharyya for the appellant and Shri BK

Goswami appearing for the respondent. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Civil Judge.

3. The facts, very briefly, which may be necessary to resolve the controversy involved in this appeal are that the respondent M/s Auro Tea Company Private Ltd filed a suit, namely, Title Suit No.51 of 1997. It appears that there was an agreement between the parties under which the defendant, namely, the present appellant M/s Bosabari Tea Estate Private Ltd had to supply the entire green tea leaves of the year 1997 to the plaintiff Auro Tea Company Private Ltd. It further transpires that a dispute arose in regard to the said agreement on the question of supply of tea leaves resulting in filing of a suit, namely, Title Suit No. 51 of 1997 by Auro Tea Company Private Ltd, amongst others, with a prayer for recovery of a given sum of amount from the defendant to compensate the loss alleged to be caused to the plaintiff and for grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from selling the tea estate of transferring its ownership by any other means.

4. The defendant, namely, the present appellant moved an application No. 2148 of 1997 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the Act) for stay of the proceedings and for referring the matter to arbitration since the matter was covered by the arbitration clause of the agreement. The said application for referring the dispute to arbitration under section 8 was allowed by order dated 6.4.1998 and the proceedings of the suit was stayed under section 8 of the Act and the parties were referred to arbitration. The parties seemed to have submitted to the order passed referring the parties to the arbitration under section 8 of the Act.

5. It also transpires that the plaintiff Auro Tea Company Private Ltd also moved an application for grant of ad interim temporary injunction in the suit proceedings of Title Suit No. 51 of 1997. The case of the plaintiff-applicant was that the defendant intended to remove or dispose of the property with a view to defrauding its creditors. Hence the temporary injunction order was necessary to be passed failing which it will cause financial injury and irreparable loss to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff-applicant, balance of convenience was in its favour and the Court could grant injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 or under section 151 CPC. The prayer for interim injunction was resisted on behalf of the defendant-appellant on the ground that an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had already been moved for stay of the proceedings and referring the matter to the Arbitrator, hence no relief of interim injunction could be granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC. It also seems to have been submitted that by virtue of section 5 of the Arbitration Act no interference can be made by the Courts in the matters covered by section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order

dated 6.4.1998 granting temporary injunction on the ground that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction. The contention is that section 9 of the Act vests jurisdiction in the Court to pass orders by way of interim measures. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows :

“9. Interim measures etc by Court- A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or