Judgment Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, an architect engaged by the respondent society, challenged an order of a learned Single Judge by way of this appeal. There was a dispute between the parties which was the subject-matter of arbitration. The appellant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking interim orders for attachment. An earlier interim order attaching the society's property had been passed; that attachment was later vacated after hearing the parties by the impugned order which is the subject of this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the power to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be controlled or restricted by invoking the provisions or principles of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in vacating the interim attachment order in the circumstances of this case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant (through Mr. Munjal, learned counsel) relied upon the judgments Rite Approach Group Ltd.…Petitioner v. Rosoboronexport…, 111 (2004) DLT 816 and Delta Construction Systems Ltd., Hyderabad v. Narmada Cement Company Ltd., Mumbai, 2002 (2) Arb. LR 47 (Bombay), contending that the power to grant interim relief cannot be controlled or restricted by invoking the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This section contains the arguments of the appellant as presented in the opinion. The opinion does not set out detailed arguments advanced by the respondents.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the impugned Single Judge's judgment and the authorities relied upon. It accepted the general proposition relied upon by appellant that Order 38 Rule 5 is not contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the court emphasized the following points as expressed in the opinion:

1. The principles embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure may be applicable where the Arbitration Act is silent on procedural aspects.
2. The Supreme Court decision in Iti Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd. was relied upon for the proposition that, in the absence of specific exclusion, the procedural provisions of the Code must be read into the Arbitration Act when courts exercise powers under that Act.
3. When exercising power under Section 9(ii)(b), the guiding factor is whether the order sought "deserves to be passed for justice to the cause."
4. The learned Single Judge used the provisions/principles of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC as a means of exercising discretion under Section 9 to determine whether attachment was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
5. Accordingly, the appellate court held that it could not fault the Single Judge merely because he stated that the provisions of Order 38 CPC must be kept in view; reliance on those principles in exercising discretion under Section 9 did not render the impugned order infirm.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

The court found no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The direct consequence for the parties is that the impugned order (which had vacated the earlier interim attachment of the society's property) stands affirmed.

The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or announce a new precedent beyond applying established principles that the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may guide the exercise of court's powers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.