Section 9 interim protection can secure disputed amounts by repossessing leased equipment even without direct ownership dispute.

A valid arbitration agreement in the lease supported reference of the dispute to arbitration, and section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as conferring wider interim protection powers than section 17. The Court noted that interim measures may preserve assets, protect the parties' positions, and secure the amount in dispute, even if the property sought to be repossessed is not the direct subject-matter of the arbitration. On that basis, repossession and sale of the leased equipment could be ordered as interim protection to safeguard recovery and prevent diminution in value.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable for appointment of a commissioner to repossess and sell leased equipment to secure the amount in dispute, even though the equipment itself was not the direct subject-matter of the arbitration.

Analysis: An arbitration clause in the lease agreement constituted a valid arbitration agreement within section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the dispute between the parties was referable to arbitration. Section 9 was held to confer wider powers on the Court to grant interim measures of protection than section 17, and those powers could be exercised to preserve assets, protect the parties' positions, and secure the amount in dispute. The Court held that the absence of a direct dispute regarding ownership of the equipment did not prevent relief under section 9, because repossession and sale of the equipment could be ordered as an interim measure to safeguard recovery and prevent diminution in value.

Conclusion: The application under section 9 was maintainable and the commissioner could be directed to repossess and sell the equipment as interim protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 may be invoked to grant interim protection that secures the amount in dispute and preserves the efficacy of arbitration, even where the property sought to be repossessed is not itself the direct subject-matter of the arbitral dispute, provided a valid arbitration agreement exists and the dispute is referable to arbitration.

---