Arbitral tribunal interim security powers upheld where prima facie case justified protection of monetary claim

After the amendment to Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral tribunal may grant interim protection to secure a monetary claim, including by directing that funds be maintained in bank accounts, where a prima facie case is shown so the eventual award is not rendered ineffective. The tribunal's decision was supported by the appellant's bank transactions and financial disclosures, and its view on the material was found to be plausible. In appeal under Section 37, interference is limited to cases where the tribunal's order is perverse or contrary to law; a mere possibility of another view is insufficient. The interim security order was therefore not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral tribunal could, in exercise of power under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, secure a monetary claim by directing maintenance of funds in bank accounts, and whether the interim order warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: The Court held that after the amendment to Section 17, the arbitral tribunal has wide powers to grant interim measures of protection and may, where a prima facie case is shown, direct security to protect the claim so that the eventual award does not become ineffective. The Court also considered the appellant's bank transactions and financial disclosures, and found that the tribunal had taken a plausible view on the material before it. The Court reiterated that in an appeal under Section 37, interference is warranted only where the tribunal's view is perverse or contrary to law, not merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the security order under Section 17, and the impugned interim order did not call for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral tribunal, after amendment of Section 17, may secure a monetary claim by an interim measure of protection if a prima facie case exists, and an appellate court will not interfere with such an order unless the tribunal's view is perverse or legally unsustainable.

---