ORDER M. Katju, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.1.2004 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent runs a glass bangle manufacturing unit in Firozabad which is within the Taj Trapezium Zone. Respondent had applied for a gas connection which was given to him in 1996 by the appellant by agreement dated 17.9.1996 for running its industry. The initial contract was for supply of 3500 S.C.M.D. natural gas which was later reduced to 1000 S.C.M.D. on the request of the respondent. 4. However, it is alleged by the respondent that on the respondent’s request the appellant again revised the gas contract quantity from 1000 to 3500 S.C.M.D. vide agreement dated 9.7.2002. Consequently, by letter dated 17.12.2002 the appellant asked the respondent to renew the letter of credit for Rs. 3,08,000 covering the quantity of 3500 S.C.M.D. of natural gas per day. In pursuance of that letter the respondent furnished the letter of credit as desired on 30.12.2002, effective from 28.12.2002 for the quantity of 3500 S.C.M.D. of gas per day. 5. The case of the respondent was that the appellant and its authorities are unnecessarily causing obstruction and hindrance to the petitioner in supply of 3500 S.C.M.D. quantity of natural gas which is essential for the petitioner’s manufacturing unit. Hence it was prayed before the court below that a direction be given to the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (G.A.I.L.) not to withhold the supply of natural gas of 3500 S.C.M.D. per day to the petitioner’s unit. 6. The appellant appeared before the court below and submitted that initially the agreement dated 17.9.1996 between the parties provided that 3500 S.C.M.D. natural gas will be supplied to the petitioner (respondent in this appeal). This contract was revised on the request of the petitioner on 27.3.2001 and the contract quantity was reduced from 3500 to 1000 S.C.M.D. 7. It is alleged that the quantity of 1000 S.C.M.D. has not been revised so far. By letter dated 17.12.2002 the petitioner was asked to submit the letter of credit as per the revised contract dated 27.3.2001. The G.A.I.L. authorities repeatedly gave warning to the petitioner to stop illegal overdrawing of natural gas, but to no avail. The petitioner has concealed material facts and not come with clean hands and is not entitled to get any injunction. 8. The G.A.I.L. authorities repeatedly gave warning to the petitioner to stop illegal overdrawing of natural gas, but to no avail. The petitioner has concealed material facts and not come with clean hands and is not entitled to get any injunction. 8. The petitioner (respondent in this appeal) has not produced copy of any agreement which shows that the G.A.I.L. once again agreed to supply 3500 S.C.M.D. natural gas to the petitioner. There were only two agreements which were produced before the court below (1) the agreement dated 17.9.1996 for supply of 3500 S.C.M.D. natural gas and (2) the agreement dated 27.3.2001 by which the supply of natural gas was reduced to 1000 from 3500 S.C.M.D. on the request of the respondent. No third agreement has been placed before the court below or even before us. 9. Copy of the agreement dated 17.9.1996 is Annexure-1 to the affidavit in support of stay application filed with this appeal. Copy of the agreement dated 27.3.2001 is Annexure-2 to that affidavit. 10. There is no third agreement between the parties. Hence we fail to understand how the court below could hold that there is an agreement for supply of 3500 S.C.M.D. natural gas. No doubt a contract can be oral also, but in such commercial transactions the ordinary practice is that the contract is in documentary form, and one copy is given to each of the parties. If the petitioner (respondent before us) wanted to contend that there was any agreement dated 9.7.2002 between the parties increasing the quantity of natural gas to be supplied to 3500 S.C.M.D. the same should have been filed before the court below or before us, but that has not been filed. We have to conclude that there is no third agreement dated 9.7.2002 as contended by the petitioner (respondent before us). The letter dated 17.12.2002 (Annexure-C.A. 6 to the counter-affidavit) cannot be deemed to be an agreement between the parties. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the court below is set aside.