Limited appellate review of interim arbitral protection upheld where disputed counter-claims were uncrystallized and financial weakness alone was insufficient.

Section 37(2)(b) permits only limited appellate interference with an arbitrator's discretionary interim order under Section 17, particularly where the order is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Refusal to secure disputed counter-claims was upheld because the claims remained uncrystallized, and the request for security rested mainly on the respondent's alleged weak financial position. Financial hardship alone was held insufficient to convert an unsecured, indeterminate claim into a secured one. The reasoning aligned with the restrained use of extraordinary protective relief and the principles governing attachment before judgment, so no ground for appellate interference was found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitrator's refusal to grant interim protection securing disputed counter-claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an order declining security for counter-claims under Section 17. The governing standard under Section 37(2)(b) permits only very limited interference with a discretionary interlocutory order of the arbitrator, especially where the order is neither arbitrary nor perverse. The counter-claims remained disputed and uncrystallized, and the request for security was founded mainly on the respondent's alleged weak financial position. The Court accepted the arbitrator's view that such financial hardship, by itself, does not justify converting an unsecured and indeterminate claim into a secured one. The reasoning was consistent with the principles governing attachment before judgment and the restrained use of extraordinary protective powers.

Conclusion: No ground for appellate interference was made out, and the refusal to grant interim security was upheld.

---