The court ruled on the necessity of demonstrating irreparable harm for interim injunctions, emphasizing that financial damages could suffice in arbitration cases.

1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (for short „the Trial Court’) in an application under Section 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the Act for referring the dispute and Sr. No. MA No. 248/2015 difference inter se the parties for arbitration in terms of Clause 39 of the Dealership (Domestic and Commercial) Agreement to the Arbitrator and sought injunction under Section 9 of the said Act. The Trial Court while dealing with the matter, allowed the prayer made in the application under Section 8 holding that the dispute has arisen between the parties which needs to be referred to the Arbitrator as contemplated in Arbitration Agreement and the dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitrator as contemplated under Clause 39 of the Dealership Agreement as the order to this effect has been challenged by the respondent in a separate appeal i.e

MA No. 248/2015, the said appeal would be dealt with separately. The Trial Court, however, rejected his application by holding that the petitioner would not suffer any irreparable loss/injury, if the interim relief is not issued in his favour in terms of his prayer and the petitioner can always be compensated in terms of money, if the breach of contract between the parties is established by the petitioner to be an arbitral issue and is ultimately established by the Arbitrator.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the refusal of the Trial Court to grant injunction under Section 9 of the Act, has challenged the said order on the following grounds:

a) That the appellant submits that order impugned in the present appeal is appealable under Section 379A) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1997.

b) That as maintained in the petition appellant is a reputed dealer and supplier of the domestic gas in the area and so far as not earned any adverse remark or entry vis-à-vis his conduct both towards the respondents and the public at large.

c) That it is true that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Specific Relief Act provide guiding principles for grant and refusal of the injunctions under Section 9 of Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1997. It is submitted that once the Hon‟ble Court came to the MA No. 248/2015 conclusion that a dispute has been bonafidely raised by one of the parties to the arbitration then it becomes the bounden duty of the court to preserve the lis or pass orders to protect both reputation and property of the litigant. As already submitted in the present case the court has found the appellant with a genuine grievance as such referred the matter to the arbitrator, but illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction so far exercise of powers u/s 9 of Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1997 are concerned.

d) That the appellant further submits that in order to seek an interim order a prima facie case is to be shown to course with irreparable loss and balance of convenience as an added component. But prima facie case is not to be mistaken for a prima facie title. In case a party raises a triable issue a prima facie case is established and once a triable issue is raised by a party or a litigant it becomes the duty of the court to preserve the lis and to save a litigant from injury either to his reputation or to his property.

e) That the mere fact that genuine dispute has been raised by the appellant is a prima facie case in his favour. The non- exercise of jurisdiction u/s 9 of the Jammu and