BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 06.11.2025

Pronounced on : 17.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Arb.Appeal.(MD)No.62 of 2025

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.14747 of 2025

1.Purushotam 2.R.Siranjeevi

3.Sri Venkateswara Blue Metals

Reg. No. Fr/periyakulam/103/2020,

Registered Office at :-

Settukadu, 18th Canal, Silamalai Post – 625528,

Bodinauyakanur Taluk,

Theni District. ... Appellants/ Respondents 1 to 3

Vs.

1. Antony Joseph

2.Seethal Paul

3.Paul Sebastine

4.Rahul R.S., ... Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners 5.Sibin Sebastine ... 5^th Respondent/ 4^th Respondent

PRAYER: Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 made in Arb.O.P.No.41 of 2025 on the file of Principal District Court, Theni and allow this Arbitration Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.Alias M.Cherian – for R1 & R4 ex parte – R2, R3 & R5

JUDGMENT

The appellants have filed the Arbitration Appeal against the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Arb.O.P.No.41 of 2025 by the Principal District Judge, Theni.

2. The Respondents 1 to 4 filed an Arbitration Petition in Arb.O.P.No.41 of 2025 under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Theni. In an order dated 30.07.2025, the Principal District Judge has passed an interim order that the partnership property shall remain secured under lock and key, and further restrained both parties from making any attempt, directly or indirectly to alter or change the existing nature of the quarry or to interfere with the property in any manner prejudicial to the rights of either party or the subject matter of the proceedings. Against which the present Arbitration Appeal filed by the appellants/respondents

1 to 3 with the following among other grounds :

a) That the Court below failed to consider that the Respondents initiated the proceedings for arbitration between the parties regarding the business transactions and in which order of the Court below maintains the premises under lock is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

b) That the order of the Court below without any application and without any order and without any adverse remarks as against the Appellants by the competent Authorities passed an order under lock of the premises is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. c) That the Court below failed to consider that Competent Authorities under the Mines and Minerals Act inspected the unit regularly and they have not issued any complaints against the Appellants and hence, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.

d) That the main petition itself is not maintainable

3. The learned counsel for the appellants during argument submitted that the Tribunal erred in exercising discretion under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of any clear demonstration by the Respondents 1 to 3/petitioners of a manifest intention to initiate arbitration proceedings. It is a settled principle that a party seeking interim relief under Section 9 must exhibit a bona fide and unequivocal intention to commence arbitration. The Courts have consistently held that failure to pursue arbitration within a reasonable time after obtaining interim relief renders such relief vulnerable to challenge. Moreover, the impugned order does not record any discussion or acknowledgement of the respondents' intention to arbitrate, which further undermines the validity of the relief granted.

4. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Section 9 relief is ancillary to arbitration and cannot be treated as an independent remedy. Granting interim protection without ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement of initiating arbitration proceedings within a reasonable time defeats the legislative intent and amounts to misuse of the process of Law. The absence of such a safeguard