reason that sub Section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, proscribes grant of interim measures by the Court, consequent on constitution of the arbitral Tribunal, save and except where the Court finds that circumstances exist, which may not render the remedy under Section 17 to be efficacious. The Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, even at a prearbitration stage, cannot, therefore, usurp the jurisdiction which would, otherwise, be vested in the Arbitrator or the arbitral Tribunal, yet to be constituted. The Court is also required to ensure that Section 9 of the Act is not employed, by litigants, who feel that it is easier to obtain interim relief from the Court, rather than from the Arbitrator or arbitral Tribunal. While in an appropriate case, the Court must not hesitate in ordering interim measures, under Section 9 of the Act while judging whether a particular case is appropriate or not, the Court is required to form its opinion based on settled propositions i.e. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and possibility of irreparable loss or injury or prejudice, if interim relief is not granted. The mere satisfaction of these criteria does not ipso facto make out a case for ordering interim measures under Section 9 of the Act. Additionally, the Court is also required to satisfy itself that the relief being sought under Section 9 of the Act, cannot await the constitution of the arbitral Tribunal or the
