The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for alternative legal remedies before invoking Article 227 of the Constitution and the principles of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated November 11, 2009 (Annexure P-l) passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad in civil suit No.444 of 2009. Vide this exparte order, the petitioner has been injuncted from acting against the plaintiff-respondent in any manner whatsoever on the basis of draft guarantee agreement dated 21.3.2007.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressing his every nerve valiantly urged that the suit filed by first respondent is clearly an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed alongwith impugned order. The said respondent concealed the fact of arbitration proceedings which had been pending for almost two years at the time of filing of the suit. This respondent had all along participated therein without any demur and had taken a specific objection that the guarantee agreement was not valid or unsustainable against it. The Arbitral Tribunal had framed a specific issue regarding the validity and enforceability of the guarantee agreement. The suit has been filed by it in anticipation of an award that was likely to be passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The only issue which arises for determination in the suit is validity or enforceability of the Guarantee Agreement. Since the Arbitral Tribunal is seized of the same, the suit is not maintainable and therefore, the jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned trial Court in entertaining the suit and passing the impugned order. It is well settled law that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matters where parties to contract have chosen arbitration as forum for their settlement. The impugned order is thus beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. This respondent had willingly participated in the arbitration proceedings and had acquiesced in its continuance and have thus waived or abandoned its right if any to apply for remedy to Civil Court by way of suit and had no prima facie case at all in the present suit. Since the Guarantee Agreement is part of the Distributive Agreement, it is also governed by laws of the State of New York, the United States of America. The learned trial Court has erred in forming a prima facie opinion on the validity of the Guarantee Agreement without any reference at all to the laws of State of New York. The respondent has been defending the arbitration proceedings for the last almost two years without even a whisper of any hardship. The plea of irreparable loss in terms of expenditure the first respondent will have to incur is also a sham portrayed by it to obtain an ex parte order of injunction. To buttress his stance in relation to jurisdiction, he has sought to place reliance on Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd. and Others (1999) 4 SCC 710 wherein it has been observed that " There is no doubt that the High Court can even interfere with the interim orders of the Courts and Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution, if the order is made without jurisdiction."

4. To tide over these submissions, the learned counsel, for the respondent maintained that if the petitioner was aggrieved with the impugned order, the best remedy open, to it was to move an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation of ad-interim injunction. Besides this, the other alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner was to pose a challenge to this order by preferring an appeal thereagainst. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel has referred to Bongaugaon Municipality and another v Bustimall Suklesha and another 1997(3) Civil Court Cases 284, Harbans Singh D.S.P.(Retd) v. Rajinder Rajan 1988(1) Punjab Law Reporter 467, Dr. Rajaratan Basavann