https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399896 In Section 9 proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court may direct deposit of a disputed holdback amount as an interim measure where the contractual framework shows a clear obligation to secure or pay that sum. The Bombay HC treated the issue as an inter se contractual matter and held that Section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not bar such relief. It also clarified that Section 9 is wide in scope and is not rigidly confined by Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, although those principles may guide discretion. On the facts, the deposit direction was justified to preserve the amount pending the substantive dispute. en-us Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:31:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399896 In Section 9 proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court may direct deposit of a disputed holdback amount as an interim measure where the contractual framework shows a clear obligation to secure or pay that sum. The Bombay HC treated the issue as an inter se contractual matter and held that Section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not bar such relief. It also clarified that Section 9 is wide in scope and is not rigidly confined by Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, although those principles may guide discretion. On the facts, the deposit direction was justified to preserve the amount pending the substantive dispute. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 03 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399896