Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
Eternity Developers Private Ltd – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Dhanna Bakkiam Enterprises – Respondent
OA Nos.1024, 1025 & 1026 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Deepak Kumar
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
A lack of intention to arbitrate can lead to dismissal of interim injunction applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Headnote:This case involves petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondents from alienating the subject property. The court noted the longstanding lull in progress towards arbitration, indicating a lack of intent to arbitrate. Reference was made to relevant legal principles from Firm Ashok Traders & Another vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja. Ultimately, the court dismissed the applications, allowing for a Section 11 petition for appointing an arbitrator.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties must demonstrate intent to arbitrate for injunction relief. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. dismissal of applications due to lack of action towards arbitration. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner, alienating or encumbering or creating third party rights in the subject property.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and carefully perused the materials available on record.
3.It is seen that the parties have entered into three separate Joint Development Agreements dated 05.02.2007, 02.06.2008 & 18.06.2008. For some reasons, there was a dispute between the parties and hence, a legal notice was issued by the applicants to the respondents on 20.09.2023. For that legal notice, a reply was also given by the respondents on 22.09.2025. Thereafter, the respondents did not come forward to perform their obligations under the Agreements and were attempting to create third party rights. It is under these circumstances, the present applications came to be filed before this Court.
4.In the considered view of this Court, there has been a complete lull for the period from 22.09.2023 till date. The dispute had arose as early as in September 2023 and till date, the applicants have not taken any steps to refer the dispute for arbitration. Even though, in the legal notice dated 20.09.2023, there is a passing reference that the matter will be referred to arbitration, till date no steps have been taken in that regard. In view of the same, this Court finds that there is no manifest intention to arbitrate the case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain these applications. Useful reference can be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in Firm Ashok Traders and Another vs.
Gurumukh Das Saluja and Others reported in 2004 3 SCC 155
5.In view of the above, it is left open to the applicants to move Section 11 petition seeking for the appointment of an Arbitrator and workout their remedy in the manner known to law.
6.In the result, all these applications stand dismissed. No Costs.
