The court clarified the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing its role in providing interim measures and the need for enforcement to be pursued through execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT

A K Menon, J. - This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is filed by the petitioner who has succeeded before the arbitral tribunal. The petitioner seeks post award relief of (i) disclosure of assets in accordance with Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) appointment of Court Receiver; (iii) injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from dealing with and disposing their assets and; (iv) freezing of the bank accounts and deposit of Rs.4,04,45,000/-.

2. Mr. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that post-award relief under Section 9 can and may be granted in the aforesaid terms. Inviting my attention to the award, Mr. Pal submitted that the award is passed by consent and it specifically provides that immovable property described in Schedule-1 was agreed to be transferred to the petitioner under a registered Tripartite Agreement dated 5th September 2013 without payment of any consideration. Respondent no.1 had then agreed to sign all documents necessary for ensuring this transfer. Respondent no.1 also agreed to undertook to do all things necessary and bear all costs, charges and expenses payable to the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), as may be required for transfer of the title of the property described in Schedule-1. The arbitral tribunal has on the basis of a consent recorded, proceeded to pass an award in terms of the consent terms signed by the parties.

3. Mr. Pal has submitted that respondent no.1 has failed and neglected to act upon clause 2(d) of the consent terms dated 20th September 2019, it is now beyond compliance. Time for transfer was to be extended by upto two months only consensually by both parties, but that has not occasioned. The award is dated 20th September 2019 and the period of six months expired on 20th March 2020. Till the expiry of the period of six months, the respondent no.1 had failed and neglected to transfer the plots and is now taking shelter under the pandemic driven lock-down to contend that no steps could be taken within time. It is the case of the petitioner that despite a specific provision requiring transfer to be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing the consent terms, respondent no.1 has failed to comply. Time has not been extended and the consent award provides that in the event 1st respondent commits breach of the provisions of the consent terms, which includes the obligation to transfer the land, the respondent no.1 would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,04,45,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 25th November 2015. The petitioner now proposes to enforce the Award. It is on this basis that the petitioner has approached this court seeking to invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. The 1st respondent's learned counsel Mr. Singh has opposed this petition. Mr. Singh also questioned the petitioner's attempt at invoking jurisdiction of this court on the basis that there has been no default on the part of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is ready and willing to transfer the land even today and there was no occasion to seek relief that has now been sought. Mr. Singh submits this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Effectively, this is an application that seeks execution of the award and the executing court would be the court in Panvel Taluka since the property in question, in respect of which the respondent no.1 seeks relief, is located in Panvel. Moreover, respondent no.1, against whom the award is enforceable today and the respondent no.2-partnership firm also, carry on business in Kamothe Taluka, New Bombay, outside the jurisdiction of this court and hence Mr. Singh has contended that this court will not have jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition.

5. The respondent no.1 has contended, as canvassed by Mr. Sing