1. The short question arising in this appeal is whether the injunction which was granted to the appellant was wrongly vacated.
2. The Appellant made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and, the direction he sought in that application was that there should be a reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties or any other suitable Order which could be made under its provisions. When the application was first presented there was an Order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from securing advertisements to be displayed on the transport vehicles belonging to the Respondent except through the instrumentality of the appellant. That injunction was granted by the Court but when the respondent sought the cancellation of that injunction, it was cancelled.
3. Mr. Srinivasan for the appellant urges that the injunction should have continued. He depends upon an agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent under the terms of which, according to Mr. Srinivasan, the respondent cannot secure advertisements through any other agency than the appellant. The complaint made by Mr. Srinivasan is that there was a breach of that agreement by the Respondent-corporation. According to Mr. Srinivasan, the agreement between the parties contains stipulation for arbitration in the event of there being a dispute between the parties, and, since the Respondent did not agree to such arbitration, the appellant was obliged to seek the intervention of the Court.
4. It may be as contended by Mr. Srinivasan, that he has got a prima facie case. But the existence of a prima facie case is not really the sole criterion governing the issue of an order of temporary injunction. The facts of each case must be examined for the purpose of deciding whether an injunction should or should not issue.
5. Now, in this case, no one can say chat unless the temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondent from securing advertisements through any other agency, a situation will arise in which the appellant will not be able to get adequate redress even if he should succeed in the arbitration which he now seeks. The Appellant can always obtain damages for breach of the agreement if there has been breach on its part.
6. In that view of the matter, I do not consider this case to be a fit one for interference with the Order made by the Court below. I dismiss this appeal. But, there will be no direction in regard to costs.
7. Appeal dismissed.