H.G. RAMESH, J.

1. This appeal is presented under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) against the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing Arbitration Application No. 850/2013 presented under original Section 9 of the Act. By the impugned order, the appellant has been restrained from enforcing the terms of the memorandum of understanding dated 18.05.2011 (18.04.2011) till constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and initiation of proceedings by it.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned order. Counsel for the respondents is absent. The sole contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that, in view of Rule 9(4) of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 (‘the Rules’), the impugned order dated 21.12.2013 granting the interim measure under Section 9 of the Act stood vacated on the expiry of three months from the date of presentation of the application under Section 9 of the Act, as arbitral proceedings were not initiated within the aforesaid three months. To examine the contention urged, Rule 9(4) of the Rules requires to be noticed; it reads as follows:

Rule 9: Application for interim measure, etc..........

(4) In the case of an Application for interim measure made before initiating arbitral proceedings, if the arbitral proceedings are not initiated within three months from the date of the presentation of the Application under section 9, any interim order granted shall stand vacated without any specific order being passed by the Court to that effect.

The above extracted sub-rule states that in the case of an application for any interim measure made before initiating arbitral proceedings, if the arbitral proceedings in respect of the dispute are not initiated within three months from the date of presentation of the application under Section 9 of the Act, any interim order granted shall stand vacated without any specific order to that effect by the Court which passed the order. It is relevant to state that ‘any interim order’ referred to in Rule 9(4) extracted above, in the context, shall include any order granting any interim measure.

3. In this case, the application under Section 9 of the Act was presented on 13.11.2013. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the arbitral proceedings in respect of the dispute were not initiated within three months from 13.11.2013, the date of presentation of the application. Hence, in our opinion, the order dated 21.12.2013 granting the interim measure, which is impugned in this appeal, stood automatically vacated on the expiry of three months from the date of presentation of the application. Therefore, no further order to set it aside is necessary.

4. In the context of the question raised, it is relevant to refer to the recent amendment to Section 9 of the Act made by Parliament by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 which came into force on 23.10.2015. Sub-section (2) which is similar to the Rule extracted above is inserted to Section 9 by the aforesaid amendment Act; the sub-section reads as follows:

Section 9: Interim measures, etc. by Court............

(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine.

(Emphasis supplied)

As per the above sub-section, where a Court passes an order for any interim measure under Section 9(1) of the Act before commencement of the arbitral proceedings, the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within the period stated in the sub-section. Commencement of the arbitral proceedings within the period stated in Section 9(2) of the Act is made mandatory by Parliament. The intention of P