F. I. REBELLO, J. (Oral) - Admit. Heard forthwith. Disputes having arisen between the petitioner and respondent, reference was made to an Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has been pleased to publish the Award on 15.1.2001 along with direction dated 30.3.2001. The respondent herein, aggrieved by the said Award preferred a petition before this Court. The petition was admitted. The petitioners in the present petition who were claimants in the dispute referred to arbitration and respondent to the petition challenging the Award have prayed that the respondent herein be ordered and decreed to deposit the various amounts as set out in the prayer clause. On the respondents depositing the said amount, the petitioners be allowed to withdraw the said amount. It is the case of the petitioners that considering the law laid down by the Apex Court, as the Award has not yet become enforceable, the petition filed by them is maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further contended that considering the challenges raised in the main petition and as there is an Award in favour of the petitioners herein, this Court should grant reliefs as prayed for. Based on the material on record, it is sought to be contended that the financial position of respondent-company is not very healthy. If the petitioners are not secured, there is every possibility that they will not be in a position to recover the amounts, if ultimately the petition filed by the respondent's is dismissed. In support of the petition one Mr. P. Raghuraj Prasad has filed affidavits dated 19.6.2001 and 18.7.2001.

Respondent No. 1 has contested the contention of the petitioners. Affidavits in opposition to the case of the petitioners have been filed by Mr. M. K. Swami on 18.6.2001, 11.7.2001 and 31.7.2001. In sum and substance respondent No. 1 contends that the petitioners have not made out a case for the reliefs as prayed for. Contention of the petitioner that the respondent company has been taken over by another company namely Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and that the cement manufactured in the plant of the respondent is packed in the bags of Larsen & Toubro and sold by the Larsen & Toubro Ltd. has been dealt with. The statement that the respondent-company as a result is shown to be incurring artificial losses, has been denied. It is denied that it is only the respondent-company which is shown to be incurring losses amongst the Cement Companies. Dealing with the said averments, Mr. Swami on behalf of the respondent has pointed out, that the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of L&T. However, the management of the company is different. The cement manufactured by the respondent is marketed by the respondent as well as by L&T. The proceeds of the cement marketed by L&T which is manufactured by the respondent is credited to the accounts of respondent. It is denied that the respondent is showing artificial losses. In an additional affidavit, which has been filed subsequently, it has been pointed out that pursuant to the measures taken for revival of the company, losses have been reduced and in fact that respondent has made a profit of Rs. 1.2 crores during the financial year 2000-2001. It is further pointed out that the results for the first quarter ending June 2001 which is announced by July 30, 2001 will show that the respondents have bettered its position from the last quarter of 2000-2001 and have shown profits of 1.43 crores. There are some other averments which I need not address myself to.

At the hearing of the petition on behalf of the respondent, it is sought to be contended that bearing in mind the scope of Section 9 of the Act of 1996, the reliefs as prayed for in the present petition cannot be granted. It is pointed out that the petition is in fact for recovery of money. In the case of recovery of money at the highest what the petitioner would be entitled to is attachment before judgment. No such case has been made out by the petitione