Bombay High Court

SOURCE IT OUT KPO SERVICES PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADITYA VARMAversusSYMBIO ENERGY LTD., THR. ITS DIRECTORS

Disposal: Disposed of
Bench: VALMIKI MENEZES

Holding

The court disposed of the application because the applicant failed to invoke the arbitration clause, rendering any interim measure inapplicable beyond the statutory 90‑day period.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief to enforce a non‑compete clause. The court had earlier rejected the interim relief. The applicant never issued a notice under Section 16 nor invoked the arbitration clause under Section 11, and it no longer operates its Goa unit. Under Section 9(2) any interim measure can operate only until arbitral proceedings commence, which must be within 90 days, and Section 17 allows continuation only after such commencement. Since the applicant failed to initiate arbitration, the court found no basis to keep the application pending and disposed of it without costs.

Issues considered

Whether an interim measure under Section 9 can be granted when the party has not invoked the arbitration clause under Section 16/11.
Whether the 90‑day limitation on interim measures applies in the absence of commencement of arbitral proceedings.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11, 16, 17, 9(2)

Subjects

Arbitration
Interim relief
Section 9
Non‑compete clause
Arbitration clause
Arbitral proceedings
90 days
Application disposed

Judgment

                                    ARA 1 of 2026

     vinita

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                 ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2026

SOURCE IT OUT KPO SERVICES PVT.
LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADITYA
VARMA                                                    ... APPLICANT
  Versus
SYMBIO ENERGY LTD., THR. ITS
DIRECTORS                                                ... RESPONDENT


Mr Nigel Costa Frias and Mr K. Panchal, Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr Parikshit Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent.


                        CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
                        DATED :- 23rd January, 2026

P.C.
              When an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act" for short) was filed on 2.11.2020,
this Court, by an order dated 7.11.2020, rejected the ad-interim relief
sought by the Applicant in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which
essentially sought enforcement of a non-compete clause contained in
the agreement.
2.      Clauses 22.1 and 22.2 of the agreement dated 17.5.2019 provide
for the appointment of an Arbitrator in the event of any disputes
between the Applicant and Respondent No.1, for whom the Applicant
was engaged in providing staff online. Enforcement of the
non-compete clause is, in effect, sought against the staff engaged for
providing services to Respondent No.1.

                                       Page 1 of 3
                                    23rd January, 2026
                                   ARA 1 of 2026


3.      Though the matter has been pending since the year 2020, the
Applicant has, till date, neither sought to raise any dispute by issuing a
notice under Section 16 of the Act nor made any attempt to invoke the
arbitration clause in terms of Section 11 of the Act. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant
no longer operates its Goa unit.
4.       Under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, any interim
measure granted by the Court shall remain in operation only until the
commencement of Arbitral proceedings. The said sub-section further
provides that where an interim order is passed, the Arbitral
proceedings must be commenced within the time stipulated therein.
5.     Section 17 of the Act provides for the continuation of interim
measures, after the commencement of Arbitral proceedings, at the
behest of the Arbitral Tribunal. A conjoint reading of sub-section (2)
of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Act makes it clear that even if an
interim measure is granted, it can operate only for a period of 90 days,
within which Arbitral proceedings are required to be commenced.
6.      In the present case, the Applicant has neither invoked the
arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 16 of the Act nor
taken any steps for the appointment of an Arbitrator. In this factual
position, even if interim measures had been granted, the same could
not have operated beyond 90 days, provided the Applicant had
initiated steps for the appointment of an Arbitrator. There is, therefore,
no reason to keep the present application pending.
7.   Considering all these facts, the application is accordingly disposed

                                      Page 2 of 3
                                   23rd January, 2026
                                       ARA 1 of 2026


                       of. No costs.



                                                  VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
                                          Page 3 of 3
Date: 27/01/2026 11:26:27
                                       23rd January, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…