HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CM(M) No. 141/2022

CM No. 7107/2022

CM No. 7346/2022

Jatinder Singh

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Arvind Bandral, Advocate.

Vs

Anmeet Kour

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. D. R. Khajuria, Advocate.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

26.12.2022

01.

Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has questioned

orders dated 10.10.2022 and 18.11.2022 passed by the Court of Additional

District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu in case titled – “Sdn. Anmeet Kour

Vs S. Jatinder Singh”.

02.

The facts emerging from the petition would reveal that the respondent

herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation

Act, 1996 seeking an interim relief in respect of running and operation of a

petrol/diesel outlet by the petitioner herein purportedly under a partnership deed

executed with the respondent herein.

03.

A dispute is stated to have been arisen between the parties to the said

partnership deed qua the apportionment of the earnings of the outlet resulting

into filing of the application (supra) under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, in view

of the existence of an Arbitration clause, incorporated in the partnership deed

Sr. No.03

2

CM(M) No. 141/2022

(supra) providing for resolution of the dispute between the parties through

Arbitration.

04.

The Court below, while considering the application after the

respondent-petitioner herein entered appearance, passed impugned order dated

10.10.2022 temporarily restraining respondent herein from violating the terms

and conditions of the partnership deed dated 05.05.2018 subject to the condition

that the petitioner commences the Arbitration proceedings at the earliest

preferably within 90 days.

05.

During the pendency of the application and after passing of order

dated 10.10.2022, the Court below passed another order on an application filed

by the applicant-respondent herein seeking implementation of the Court order

dated 10.10.2022 (supra) through intervention of Police. The said application

came to be considered by the Court below and an order came to be passed

directing SHO, Police Station, Satwari/SDPO South, Jammu to implement the

Court order dated 10.10.2022.

06.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

07.

It is not in dispute that the proceedings before the Court below came

to be instituted by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Act of 1996

which provides for interim measures to be undertaken by a Court either before

or during arbitration proceedings or any time after the making of arbitral award

but before its enforcement in accordance with section 36. It is also not in dispute

that the Court below after passing order dated 10.10.2022 has passed impugned

order dated 18.11.2022 whereby SHO, Police Station, Satwari/SDPO South,

Jammu came to be directed to implement the Court order dated 10.10.2022 and

to file a compliance report thereof.

08.

A perusal of the application filed by the applicant-respondent herein

does not per se suggest as to under what provisions the said application has been

3

CM(M) No. 141/2022

maintained, so much so, it is not traceable from the order passed by the Court

below as to the source of power the said Court has exercised and directed the

Police agency to enforce the order dated 10.10.2022.

Assuming, though not admitting that the Court below have had any

power to direct the Police agency to enforce the order passed under

Section 9 of the Act of 1996, yet, having regard to the nature of

order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Court below, seemingly there

was no scope or occasion for the Court below to have directed the

Police agency to enforce such kind of an order whereby the

respondent-petitioner herein had been directed to not violate the

terms and