Dismissed

Clover Bay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Acrannolife genomics Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC11 Sept 2025OA/911/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of an application for an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from exploiting software pending arbitration. The Court held that there was no manifest intention to arbitrate as no Section 21 notice was issued, rendering the Section 9 application unentertainable.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of without entertaining the request for interim injunction due to lack of manifest intention to arbitrate.

Clover Bay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acrannolife… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶7

M/s.Clover Bay Technologies Private Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Manish Kumar Having its registered office at F#004, Chinnu Paradise Doddenakundi, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 037 .. Applicant Vs.

¶8

M/s.Acrannolife Genomics Private Limited Rep. by its Director Mr.Agragesh Ramani Having its registered office at 1st Floor No.19/10, Xavier Street, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006 .. Respondent

¶9

Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Section 9(2)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondent, their agents or representatives from using, exploiting, licensing, or creating third-party rights in respect of the software applications Lab Test Scanner and Trumone pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings.

¶10

1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from exploiting, licensing, or creating third-party rights in respect of the software applications Lab Test Scanner and Trumone.

¶15

This Court heard the learned counsel for the applicant and carefully went

¶16

through the materials available on record.

¶17

The parties entered into a Service Agreement dated 09.08.2022, which

¶18

contains comprehensive clauses regarding the scope of services, deliverables,

¶19

payments, ownership of intellectual property and dispute resolution. The applicant

¶20

has raised two invoices viz ., on 06.09.2022 for a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- for Lab Test Scanner and 03.02.2023 for a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- for Trumone. It is

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶24

alleged that the respondent failed to discharge the payment obligations and there

¶25

was an outstanding of Rs.29,50,000/-. Several e-mail communications were made,

¶26

but did not yield any result.

¶27

As per Clause 10(c) of the Services Agreement, it provides that initially

¶28

the dispute must be resolved by mutual discussions followed by mediation and conciliation and on failure, the dispute should be referred to arbitration by a threemember panel.

¶29

The case of the applicant is that the invoice raised by the applicant was

¶30

never cleared and several communications were made to the respondent and in the

¶31

meantime, the respondent is attempting to use and exploit the software applications, Lab Test Scanner and Trumone. It is under these circumstances, the

¶32

present application came to be filed before this Court.

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶36

In the considered view of this Court, the dispute had started even in the

¶37

year 2022 and various communications were made by the applicant from 2023 and

¶38

ultimately, it did not yield any result. Hence, the applicant ought to have initiated proceedings to refer the dispute for arbitration. However, till date, even the trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act has not been issued.

¶39

To invoke Section 9 of the Act, there must be manifest intention to arbitrate and in the absence of the same, the Court cannot entertain the application and grant the interim order. In the case in hand, this manifest intention to arbitrate is completely missing. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. It is left open to the applicant to take steps for appointment of the Arbitral Tribuanl and it is also left open to the applicant to move an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Arbitral Tribunal and seek for the interim relief. It goes without saying that if any such application is filed, it will be dealt

¶40

with by the Arbitral Tribunal on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶44

With the above observation, this application stands disposed of. No costs.

11.09.2025

gya

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

O.A.No.911 of 2025

¶50

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gya

O.A.No.911 of 2025

11.09.2025

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Clover Bay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Acrannolife genomics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Clover Bay Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Acrannolife genomics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yeses Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Empee Power Company (India) Ltd.

M/s.Oil &Natural Gas Corpn Ltd. Vs M/s.Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas

Loganathan Vs Karunakaran

R.N.Dhanasekaran Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Complaints Committee Against Sexual Harassment (Ccash) Vs Satya Sunder Sethy

Mr.a.Mohamed Rafique Vs Mr.Uthayakumar