Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration Act extends beyond award stage and may include bank guarantee security.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers an independent power to grant interim protection, including security for the amount in dispute, and that power is not confined by the substantive conditions of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The Court held that the procedural machinery of the Code may assist enforcement of the order, but its stricter attachment-before-judgment requirements are not imported into section 9. The Court also held that section 9 remains available after an arbitral award is made but before it becomes enforceable, and that security may be directed in the form of a bank guarantee where the circumstances so justify.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant interim protection by securing the amount in dispute is confined by the principles underlying Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether section 9 can be invoked after an arbitral award has been made but before it becomes enforceable, and whether security could be directed in the form of a bank guarantee.

Issue (i): Whether the power under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant interim protection by securing the amount in dispute is confined by the principles underlying Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 9 itself confers power on the Court to grant interim measures, including securing the amount in dispute, and also states that the Court shall have the same powers as it has in relation to proceedings before it. The procedural machinery of the Code of Civil Procedure may apply to give effect to the order, but the substantive conditions governing attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 are not imported into section 9. The Court declined to accept the view that section 9 relief is fettered by the stricter predicates of Order 38 Rule 5, holding that the statutory power under the arbitration law is independent and must be exercised having regard to the object of expeditious protection.

Conclusion: The section 9 power is not confined by Order 38 Rule 5, and the Court may grant interim security without first satisfying those restrictive conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether section 9 can be invoked after an arbitral award has been made but before it becomes enforceable, and whether security could be directed in the form of a bank guarantee.

Analysis: The Court read section 9 as expressly extending to the period after an award is made but before it is enforced. Section 32 was held to govern termination of arbitral proceedings, while section 36 and the challenge/correction regime show that an award does not become enforceable immediately upon pronouncement. The Court reasoned that the statutory protection must remain available until enforceability, and that the nature of the relief depends on the subject-matter and the material placed before the Court. On the facts, amounts found due to the petitioners were required to be secured, and a bank guarantee was considered an appropriate interim safeguard.

Conclusion: Section 9 remained available after the award and before enforceability, and the respondents were directed to furnish security by way of bank guarantee.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection under section 9 was upheld as available even after the award stage but before enforceability, and the petitioners obtained secured interim relief in the form of a bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers an independent power to grant interim protection, including securing the amount in dispute, and that power is available after an award is made but before it becomes enforceable, without being limited by the substantive requirements of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---