Anima Hazarika, J.;-

This appeal being numbered as Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2008 has been filed at the instance of the appellant under Section 37 (1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 4 of 2007 filed under Section 9 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code' for short) whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge vacated the order of status-quo passed earlier and thereby rejecting the prayer of interim injunction.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarized as follows:

The appellant is the owner of the Tea Manufacturing unit under the name and style of "Dekhari Tea Factory" situated at Dekhari in the district of Dibrugarh. The appellant's company along with seventeen other companies executed an agreement on 03.12.2002 with the responent for availing supply of gas for a period often (10) years under the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement for the purpose of consumption of gas in the factories including the generation of electricity for running the factories of the companies. The appellant, therefore, is a Buyer of the gas and the respondent is the Seller of the gas as per the said agreement. The appellant is also a member of Moran Plantation Gas Grid Suppliers Association (hereinafter referred to as 'MPGGSA' only) who is the confirming party to the said agreement executed on 03.12.2002. But, when the said agreement was executed on 03.12.2002, the company did not have any gas generator for generating electricity and only in the month of March 2007 the company had purchased gas generator sets of total 375 KV capacity, the same was commissioned on 02.05.07 and started using gas for generating electricity for consumption in its factory in terms of unnumbered paragraph 2 of page 2 of the agreement. The appellant by its letter dated 30.5.2007 duly informed the respondent and MPGGSA about its using gas for the purpose of generating electricity from the aforesaid date 02.05.2007. The use of gas for generating electricity by the company was noticed by MPGGSA and accordingly, it requested the respondent to disconnect the gas line to the appellant's generating sets which, however, was informed vide communication dated 01.06.2007 and as such the cause of action for initiation of legal proceeding arose and consequently thereupon an application under Section 9 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code was filed being Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 4 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh, who initially directed the respondent to maintain status quo vide order dated 18.06.2007 and subsequently rejected the same after hearing the parties vide order dated 03.01.2008 which is under challenge before this Court.

3. Referring to the agreement, executed on 03.12.2002, Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the unnumbered paragraph 2 at page 2 would show that the respondent (Seller) agreed to supply gas to the Buyer for consumption in the factory as well as for generating electricity for running the factory as mentioned in Annexure-I, II and III (Part of the agreement dated 03.12.2002) and the company consumes the gas in the factory either for running the Dryer Machine, Withering trough or for running the generating sets which are in the factory and not outside the factory and as such the learned trial judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record in rejecting the prayer for interim injunction vide order dated 03.01.2008 which requires interference or else it would cause irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

4. Mr. Agarwal has further contended that there is a clause viz., Arbitration clause being Clause No. 17 of the agreement dated 03.12.2002 whereby i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document