Section 17 interim powers do not extend to appointing the High Court's Court Receiver as an arbitral receiver.

Section 17 of the amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 enlarges an arbitral tribunal's power to grant interim measures and makes its orders enforceable like court orders, but it does not authorise the tribunal to appoint an officer or department of the High Court itself as receiver. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, remains an establishment under the High Court's exclusive administrative control, and directions concerning that office had historically issued only from the High Court, save for limited transitional situations. The power to appoint a receiver under Section 17 is confined to appointing a fit person in the ordinary civil-law sense. An arbitral tribunal therefore cannot appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as receiver.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitral tribunal can appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as receiver under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended, and whether such appointment can be sustained on the basis of the tribunal's power to grant interim measures.

Analysis: The Office of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was held to be an establishment and department of the High Court under the administrative control of the Chief Justice, and the earlier authorities showed that directions to the Court Receiver had been issued only by the High Court, or, in a limited transitional situation, by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of matters in which the Court Receiver had already been appointed by the High Court. Section 17 of the amended Act was construed as enlarging the tribunal's power to grant interim measures and equating its orders with court orders for enforcement, but not as converting the tribunal into the High Court or as authorising it to appoint an officer or employee of the High Court itself. The power to appoint a receiver under Section 17 was held to extend only to persons capable of being appointed as receivers in the ordinary sense under the civil law framework, not to the Court Receiver, whose appointment and supervision were governed by the High Court's own rules and control. A construction requiring later administrative approval by the High Court was rejected as inconsistent with Section 17 and Section 5 of the Act, and as impracticable in the functioning of the Court Receiver's office.

Conclusion: An arbitral tribunal cannot appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as receiver under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended.

Ratio Decidendi: The power conferred by Section 17 to appoint a receiver is confined to appointing a fit person as receiver and does not extend to appointing an officer or department of the High Court that remains subject to the High Court's exclusive administrative control.

---