Reasoned orders required for attachment absolute; interim protection may shift to the arbitral tribunal once arbitration has commenced.

An interim attachment made absolute without addressing the challenge to the agreement, disputed liability, or other objections was held unsustainable because an order affecting substantive rights must give reasons. The court set aside the non-speaking order. As arbitral proceedings had already commenced, it also preserved a brief interim restraint while leaving the parties liberty to seek further interim measures before the arbitral tribunal under the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order making the attachment absolute was unsustainable for want of reasons; (ii) whether, after setting aside the order, limited interim protection could be preserved and the parties relegated to seek relief before the arbitral tribunal.

Issue (i): whether the order making the attachment absolute was unsustainable for want of reasons.

Analysis: The order of the court below merely recorded that the attachment was made absolute and the arbitration petition was closed, without addressing the challenge to the agreement, the disputed liability, or any other contention raised. An order affecting substantive rights must disclose reasons, and a non-speaking order cannot stand where disputed questions have been left unexamined.

Conclusion: The order making the attachment absolute was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether, after setting aside the order, limited interim protection could be preserved and the parties relegated to seek relief before the arbitral tribunal.

Analysis: Since arbitral proceedings had already been initiated, the statutory scheme permitted the aggrieved party to seek interim measures of protection from the arbitral tribunal itself. To ensure that the parties did not suffer from the court's failure to render a reasoned order, a short interim restraint was considered appropriate while leaving liberty to approach the tribunal for further relief.

Conclusion: Limited interim protection was granted for a short period, and liberty was reserved to seek appropriate interim relief before the arbitral tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned order was quashed, a brief protective restraint was continued temporarily, and the parties were left to pursue interim remedies under the arbitral process.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking order making an interim attachment absolute cannot be sustained, and where arbitration has commenced, interim protection should ordinarily be sought from the arbitral tribunal under the statutory scheme.

---