Section 9 interim relief survives section 17 powers, and leased assets may be placed in receivership for protection.

Section 9 interim relief remains available notwithstanding the Arbitral Tribunal's power under section 17, because section 17 is enabling and does not oust the Court's jurisdiction. The Court therefore recognised that pendency of arbitral proceedings does not by itself bar protective relief from the Court. Where lease documents showed machinery and equipment remained the lessor's property and the lessee held them only as bailee, a Receiver could be appointed to protect the assets, particularly when sickness proceedings had been invoked and the equipment risked dissipation or damage. Interim custody of the leased equipment was accordingly justified to preserve the petitioner's property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court could exercise jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the availability of interim relief before the Arbitral Tribunal under section 17; (ii) Whether a Receiver could be appointed in respect of leased machinery and equipment in the respondent's possession when the respondent had invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the Court could exercise jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the availability of interim relief before the Arbitral Tribunal under section 17.

Analysis: The availability of interim powers to the Arbitral Tribunal does not exclude the Court's jurisdiction to grant appropriate interim relief under section 9. Section 17 is an enabling provision and is not a substitute for section 9. Pendency of arbitral proceedings, by itself, does not bar recourse to the Court, and the earlier view suggesting otherwise was treated as not laying down the correct position.

Conclusion: The Court held that jurisdiction under section 9 remained available notwithstanding pending arbitral proceedings and the existence of section 17 relief.

Issue (ii): Whether a Receiver could be appointed in respect of leased machinery and equipment in the respondent's possession when the respondent had invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The lease documentation showed that the equipment remained the lessor's property, the lessee held it as bailee, and the lessee had no right to treat the assets as its own. In the circumstances, especially where sickness proceedings had been invoked and the assets were at risk of dissipation or damage, appointment of a Receiver was considered necessary to secure the petitioner's property and preserve the equipment.

Conclusion: The Court held that appointment of a Receiver was justified and ordered custody of the leased equipment to be taken and in safe custody.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and interim protective relief was granted to secure the leased assets in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of arbitral interim powers does not oust the Court's power under section 9, and leased assets shown by contract to remain the lessor's property may be taken into receivership where their protection is necessary.

---