IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of manifest intention to arbitrate under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and the legal effectiveness of an interim order under Section 9(1) in relation to the commencement of arbitral proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional District Court-IV, Thodupuzha (for short, the Commercial Appellate Court) dismissing an application to stay the operation of the interim injunction order passed by the Commercial Court, Kattappana, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act).

2. The petitioners and respondents are partners of the registered partnership firm named D' Heavenly Mist, constituted by a deed of partnership dated 12/8/2016 and reconstituted later on 24/6/2022. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was the managing partner of the firm. The majority of the partners took a decision to remove the 1st respondent from the position of managing partner in the meeting of the partners held on 12/6/2023 and he was removed. It is alleged that the 1st respondent was so removed since his conduct was in violation of the terms of the partnership and detrimental to the interest of the partnership business. On removal of the 1st respondent from the post of managing partner of the firm, the 7th respondent assumed charge as managing partner on 13/6/2023. Respondents 1 to 4 challenged the decision taken on 12/6/2023 removing the 1st respondent from the post of managing partner of the firm before the Commercial Court by filing Ext.P4 application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The prayer in the application was to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the 7th respondent herein from officiating as the managing partner of the firm and restraining the respondents therein from obstructing the continuation of the 1st respondent as the managing partner. The Commercial Court, after hearing both sides, granted the injunction as prayed for as per Ext.P5 order. The petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 challenged Ext.P5 order before the Commercial Appellate Court in appeal. Ext.P8 is the copy of the appeal. Along with Ext.P8, the petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 submitted an interim application to stay the operation of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P9 is the interim application. The Commercial Appellate Court dismissed Ext.P9 as per Ext.P11 order. It is challenging the said order; the petitioners, who are respondents 2 and 7 before the Commercial Court, have approached this Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I have heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior counsel instructed by Smt.Asalatha Varma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.Teja R., the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 11, and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar submitted that the appellate power under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act can be exercised only by a Principal District Judge of the district concerned and not the Additional District Judge. Therefore, Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha is without jurisdiction, void and non est in the eye of law. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per Section 9(2) of the Arbitration Act, the interim order is valid only for ninety days from the date of the order, beyond which period respondents 1 and 2 should have approached the Commercial Court for extension of time with sufficient reason. Admittedly, they have neither approached the Commercial Court for an extension of time nor initiated arbitration proceedings within the stipulated period of ninety days and hence, Ext.P5 order stood vacated automatically.

Reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Paton Constructions Private Ltd. Mumbai (M/s.) v. M/s Lorven Projects Ltd, Hyderabad and Another [2017 KHC 4500]. The learned counsel also submitted that Ext.P11 order is totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Commercial Appellate Court, encroaching upon the domain of the arbitration by predetermining what sh