Section 9 interim protection under arbitration requires real risk of frustration; bare apprehension is not enough for security or asset disclosure.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as an emergency protective remedy, and security could be ordered only on facts showing a real risk that the arbitral process would be frustrated; a bare claim or prima facie case was insufficient, so the request for a bank guarantee was rejected. A restraint on payment of the respondent's bills was also refused because it lacked a sufficient nexus with Section 9 protection and could not be justified merely by apprehended recovery difficulty. The prayer for disclosure of assets by affidavit was likewise held outside the immediate protective scope of Section 9 on the facts pleaded, while notice was issued only on the remaining claim for further hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether security could be directed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the facts pleaded, (ii) whether a restraint could be granted against payment of the respondent's bills to secure the petitioner's claim, and (iii) whether disclosure of assets by affidavit could be directed under Section 9.

Issue (i): whether security could be directed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: A direction securing the amount in dispute under Section 9(1)(ii)(b) must conform, in principle, to the discipline of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mere existence of a claim or a prima facie case is insufficient. The applicant must show facts indicating that, without security, the arbitral proceedings are likely to be frustrated. Section 9 is an emergency measure for interim protection and not a substitute for ordinary interim relief or for Section 17.

Conclusion: No ad interim security order was warranted; the prayer for furnishing a bank guarantee was rejected for the present.

Issue (ii): whether a restraint could be granted against payment of the respondent's bills to secure the petitioner's claim.

Analysis: A restraint on payment to a third party cannot be granted merely because the petitioner alleges outstanding dues or fears that later recovery may become difficult. Such payment does not, by itself, affect the petitioner's independent claim, which if tenable must be pursued in appropriate arbitral proceedings. The prayer had no sufficient nexus with the protective jurisdiction under Section 9.

Conclusion: The restraint prayer was rejected at the outset.

Issue (iii): whether disclosure of assets by affidavit could be directed under Section 9.

Analysis: A direction compelling the respondents to file an affidavit of movable, immovable, tangible and intangible assets was not treated as a permissible Section 9 measure on the facts of the petition. The relief sought was outside the immediate protective scope of the provision as invoked here.

Conclusion: The asset-disclosure prayer was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was declined on the principal protective prayers, while notice was issued only with respect to the remaining claim for consideration; the petition continued for further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Security under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is justified only where facts show a real risk of frustration of the arbitral process, and not on the basis of a bare apprehension of difficulty in future enforcement.

---