Limited interference with Section 17 interim protection upheld where the arbitral tribunal preserved the disputed property pending arbitration.

Interference with a reasoned Section 17 interim order preserving disputed property and maintaining status quo was unwarranted under Section 37(2)(b) because the arbitral tribunal had applied prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable prejudice before protecting the subject matter of arbitration. The challenge turned on issues such as determinability of the agreement, bona fide purchase, and enforceability of specific performance, but those matters remained for the arbitrator and were not fit for final adjudication at the interlocutory stage. The appellate court upheld the protective directions, finding they preserved the arbitral corpus and prevented frustration of the main claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interlocutory order passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing maintenance of status quo over the disputed property and restraint against altering its character, called for interference in appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act.

Analysis: The impugned Section 17 order was found to be a reasoned interim measure passed after considering delay, alleged collusion, subsequent transfer of the disputed property, the claim for specific performance, and the need to preserve the subject matter of arbitration. The Court held that the arbitral tribunal had balanced prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable prejudice, and had acted to prevent frustration of the main claim. It also held that the challenge raised questions such as determinability of the agreement, bona fide purchase, and enforceability of specific performance, all of which were matters still pending before the arbitrator and not fit for definitive determination at the interlocutory stage. The scope of interference under Section 37(2)(b) was held to be limited, especially where the arbitral tribunal has passed a well-reasoned protective order preserving the arbitral corpus.

Conclusion: The appellate interference was not warranted, and the interim status quo directions were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the protective interim order in aid of arbitration remained in force, with the merits of the underlying contractual and property disputes left for determination by the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Section 37(2)(b) with a reasoned Section 17 interim order is warranted only when the tribunal's exercise of discretion is palpably arbitrary or unconscionable, and not when the order preserves the subject matter of arbitration on a prima facie assessment of convenience and prejudice.

---