https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196779 A Section 9 petition for interim protection was held maintainable even where the underlying transaction involved mortgage-related issues, because the court was not asked to adjudicate an in-arbitrable mortgage enforcement claim. The court held that objections based on non-arbitrability could not defeat interim relief where arbitrable monetary or protective claims were pursued, leaving jurisdictional objections on any later impermissible claim to the arbitral forum. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the transaction and execution of documents were linked to Mumbai and part of the cause of action arose there. Applying interlocutory principles akin to Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, the court granted protective reliefs including receiver, injunction and attachment to secure the claim pending arbitration. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:21:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196779 A Section 9 petition for interim protection was held maintainable even where the underlying transaction involved mortgage-related issues, because the court was not asked to adjudicate an in-arbitrable mortgage enforcement claim. The court held that objections based on non-arbitrability could not defeat interim relief where arbitrable monetary or protective claims were pursued, leaving jurisdictional objections on any later impermissible claim to the arbitral forum. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the transaction and execution of documents were linked to Mumbai and part of the cause of action arose there. Applying interlocutory principles akin to Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, the court granted protective reliefs including receiver, injunction and attachment to secure the claim pending arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196779