The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal provision was not applicable to the interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, making the writ petition maintainable. The court also emphasized the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act.

AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge CCH No. 11 bangalore on an application made by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act in AA No. 131/2007. The copy of the impugned order is at Annexure-'k'.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition can be summarised as follows: the petitioner, a multi-national Company appointed the respondent as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in terms of the letter issued to him. Pursuant to the said appointment, the petitioner and the respondent have separately entered into a confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement providing for non-disclosure of confidential information, which he would have acquired in the course of his employment with the petitioner-Company. On 11-4-2007, the petitioner terminated the services of respondent from the petitioner-Company. The reason for termination was that the petitioner-Company found that the respondent did not satisfy the High standard and was found wanting in discharging his responsibilities as Vice President and Chief financial Officer. It was also found that the respondent was discourteous to his colleagues and sub-ordinates. The respondent issued a legal notice on 23-4-2007 alleging that his termination was motivated, illegal, arbitrary and unilateral. Suffice it to say that the notice also contained a claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 2 crores for the alleged loss and the hardship suffered by him. A suitable reply was sent by the petitioners On 4-5-2007. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Trial Court, which was registered as AA No. 131/ 2007 for interim measures. In the said petition the respondent sought for a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores in the trial Court and during the pendency of the said application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to pay the applicant i. e. , the respondent regular remuneration including all benefits commencing from June 2007. The respondent also maintained an interim application under Section 9 of the Act claiming certain reliefs, which was in the nature of injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the property mentioned in the schedule. The said application as granted by the Trial Court without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, it appears received a communication on 26-7-2007 from the Counsel appearing for the respondent in the Trial court informing that the petitioner's main Bank Account in HSBC bank of M. G. Road, Bangalore has been attached. The petitioner has called in question the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

( 3 ) MR. K. G. Raghavan, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very nature of the application filed by the respondent does not entitle him for an order of attachment. He further submits that the application, was in the nature of an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating any portion of the property described in the schedule. But however, the learned trial Judge has chosen to travel beyond the scope of the application and has issued an attachment warrant freezing the account of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 2 crores. That is the subject matter of the original proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. He submits that in the very nature of things, the learned Trial Judge could not have bypassed the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure assuming that they are applicable. He further submits that the attachment of the Bank account is the last resort and is to be exercised only when the Courts are satisfied that in the event of the applicant succeeds in the proceedings, the relief, which is granted should not go unanswered.

( 4 ) MR. Bishwajith Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document