Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha, Adv. Mr. Sairam Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kant, Adv. Mr. Prabh Simran Kaur, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

1. Novation of a contract or set-off is not permitted in respect of a corporate entity undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without the consent of the Resolution Professional. This is reinforced by statutory provisions that bar action to foreclose, recover, or enforce security interests created by a corporate debtor during CIRP, and obligations under a contract cannot be assigned without the counterparty's consent (!) (!) .

2. When deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, courts cannot ignore the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, the power to grant interim relief is not limited by every procedural requirement in the CPC, and technicalities should not prevent the court from securing justice. The court's primary considerations include whether the applicant has a prima facie case, if the balance of convenience favors granting relief, and whether the applicant has approached the court with reasonable expedition (!) (!) (!) .

3. Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove, or dispose of property to defeat or delay realization of an arbitral award is not mandatory for obtaining relief under Section 9. A strong likelihood of asset diminution and the balance of convenience favoring the applicant are sufficient grounds for interim relief. Technical deficiencies in pleadings, such as the absence of specific averments under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC, should not be a barrier if the court finds a prima facie case and that justice requires relief (!) (!) .

4. The exercise of the court’s power under Section 9 is broad and flexible, allowing for a range of interim measures that are just and convenient. While principles of procedural law guide the court, they should not be rigidly applied to defeat the purpose of securing the efficacy of arbitration. The overarching aim is to promote effective dispute resolution while ensuring justice is served (!) (!) .

5. The court must balance the principles of procedural law with the need to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of arbitration. While procedural safeguards are important, they should not be used to prevent the granting of interim relief if the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favors granting relief. The discretion to mold relief in appropriate cases is recognized to ensure justice and the sanctity of the arbitral process (!) (!) .

6. In cases involving security deposits or assets, even if the debtor discloses limited assets or encumbrances, the court retains the authority to secure the claim of the applicant if there is a good prima facie case and the circumstances justify interim protection. The court’s primary concern is to secure the applicant’s rights in arbitration, and technicalities or asset disclosures should not unduly restrict this power (!) (!) .

7. Overall, courts are guided by the principles of justice, equity, and the purpose of arbitration legislation, exercising their discretion to grant interim measures that are appropriate and necessary to secure the substantive rights of the parties involved in arbitration proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal questions.