Independent interim relief under arbitration law is governed by equitable considerations, not rigid attachment-before-judgment requirements.

Section 9(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an independent interim relief power and the strict conditions for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not a mandatory precondition. The court applied an equitable test focused on justice, fair play, the nature of the claim, and the risk of an ineffective award. On the facts, the material relied on was disputed, the accounts were part of the arbitral controversy, and there was no sufficient basis to show that the respondent was acting to defeat an award. Relief directing deposit of security was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the power under Section 9(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to secure the amount in dispute in arbitration is controlled by the requirements of attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the appellant made out a case for directing deposit of security on the facts.

Analysis: Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an independent interim relief provision. The absence of a provision corresponding to Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shows that the Code of Civil Procedure is not bodily incorporated into proceedings under the 1996 Act. The Court held that while procedural provisions may be used where the Act is silent, the substantive conditions of Order 38 Rule 5 cannot be read into Section 9(ii)(b) as a rigid precondition. The proper test is whether, on the facts, an interim protection order is justified in the interests of justice, having regard to equity, fair play, the nature of the claim, and the risk that the award may be rendered ineffective. On the facts, the material relied upon by the appellant was disputed, the accounts formed part of the arbitral controversy, and no sufficient material showed that the respondent was acting to defeat any award.

Conclusion: The power under Section 9(ii)(b) is not fettered by Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but no security deposit order was warranted on the facts. The appellant failed to establish a case for interim protection directing deposit of the claimed amount, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection under Section 9(ii)(b) must be exercised on equitable considerations and not by importing the strict requirements of attachment before judgment; however, relief will be refused where the claimant does not show a sufficient factual basis for securing the disputed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's power to secure the amount in dispute under Section 9(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an independent discretionary power governed by equitable considerations and is not subject, as a mandatory prerequisite, to the conditions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---