Section 9 interim protection upheld for arbitration claim; Mumbai jurisdiction and preservative reliefs sustained.

A section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was held maintainable in the Mumbai HC because the arbitration clause fixed Mumbai as the venue, exclusive jurisdiction was conferred on Mumbai courts, and part of the cause of action arose there. The proceeding was treated as an application for interim protection, not a suit for land, so leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent was not required. The Court also noted that section 9 allows wider preservative relief than section 17 and may secure an arbitral monetary claim even where the mortgaged property is not itself the subject of the arbitration. On the facts, receiver, injunction, and asset disclosure reliefs were granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before the High Court at Mumbai despite the mortgaged property being situated outside its territorial jurisdiction and without leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. (ii) Whether interim measures in the form of appointment of a Court Receiver, injunction, and disclosure of assets were warranted to secure the petitioner's monetary claim in arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before the High Court at Mumbai despite the mortgaged property being situated outside its territorial jurisdiction and without leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement provided for Mumbai as the venue of arbitration and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Mumbai. The record also showed that the petitioner's branch office at Mumbai processed the sanction and that a material part of the cause of action arose within Mumbai. The proceeding under section 9 was treated as an application for interim measures and not as a suit for land. Since the final relief was claimed in arbitration and the section 9 petition sought only protective measures, leave under clause 12 was not required.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable before the High Court at Mumbai and was not barred for want of leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Issue (ii): Whether interim measures in the form of appointment of a Court Receiver, injunction, and disclosure of assets were warranted to secure the petitioner's monetary claim in arbitration.

Analysis: The respondents were in default, the loan liability remained disputed only on limited grounds, and the petitioner apprehended dissipation of assets. The power under section 9 was held to be wider than the remedy available under section 17 and could be used to secure the claim even where the mortgage itself was not the subject of the arbitral claim. On the facts, a prima facie case was made out for protective reliefs to preserve the secured property and the respondents' assets pending arbitration.

Conclusion: Interim relief by way of a Court Receiver, injunction, and asset disclosure was granted in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded as a protective measure in aid of arbitration, and the Court preserved the secured property and required disclosure to safeguard the petitioner's claim pending the arbitral proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 9 petition is maintainable as an application for interim protection and not as a suit for land, and the Court may grant receiver-based or other preservative reliefs to secure an arbitral claim even when the mortgaged property is not the subject matter of the arbitration.

---