JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) challenges a common order dated 14 February, 2022 passed by the learned sole arbitrator on two applications, firstly, on an application as filed by the respondent under Section 17 of the Act and secondly, on an application filed by the petitioners, treated as an application under section 17 of the Act, in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court (B.P. Colabawalla, J.) by an order dated 20 September, 2021.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is primarily on the directions as made by the arbitral tribunal on the disclosure of the assets to be made by the petitioners pending the arbitral proceedings. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus:-

“ORDER

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels, I deem it fit to grant an order of disclosure in favour of the Claimant and against Respondent No.1. Furthermore, considering that Respondent No.1 had not filed his Affidavit of Disclosure pursuant to the Section 9 Order, the Claimant is today kept in the dark as to whether or not Respondent No.1’s assets would be sufficient to secure its Claim and further; that whether or not Respondent No.1 has any / sufficient assets to secure the Claim amount. I see no reason as to why and how any prejudice whatsoever will be caused to Respondent No.1 in making a true and correct disclosure of his assets in these proceedings.

22. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is directed to disclose on Affidavit, the true and complete details of all the assets (both movable and immovable including the bank accounts and other assets) held and owned by Respondent No.1 and the encumbrances and charges, if any, on these assets within a period of (7) days from the date of this Order.

23. I also deem it appropriate to restrain Respondent No.1 from selling, transferring, disposing off or alienating or encumbering or mortgaging or charging or parting with possession of Respondent No.1’s assets pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitral proceedings.

24. Needless to state, should the quantum of Respondent No.1’s assets once disclosed be found to be far in excess of the Claimant’s claim in these proceedings, Respondent No.1 would necessarily be at liberty to seek exclusion of such assets (which are far in excess of the Claimant’s claim in these proceedings) from the purview of the present order of injunction.

25. Thus, the Section 17 Application is allowed in the above terms, and the Modification Application is accordingly dismissed.

26. In the aforesaid circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”

3. Briefly, the relevant facts are :- Disputes and differences had arisen between the parties under a Put Option Agreement dated 19 March, 2020 executed between the respondent as a Debenture Holder and petitioner no.1 as a promoter and petitioner no.2 as a confirming party. An arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in clause 10.2 of the said Put Option Agreement. The respondent had earlier approached this Court in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L.) No.18859 of 2021 praying for interim measures pending the arbitral proceedings. This Court (B.P. Colabawalla, J.) disposed of the said petition by an order dated 20 September, 2021. The operative order reads thus:

“20. This being the law laid down by this Court and considering the fact that there is no real defence to the payability of the amounts under the Put Option Agreement in relation to the said CCDs, I am of the opinion that a case for an order of deposit is made out against Respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the following order is passed:-

(i) Pending the Arbitral Proceedings and until the execution of the Arbitral Award, Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs. 1,15,78,764/- within a period of eight weeks from today.

(ii) Over and above this, there shall be interim relief