JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The short question which arises for consideration is, whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 lies for the same interim measure which has already been granted to the petitioner by the arbitral tribunal on an application being made by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner seeks to justify the present petition inspite of an order of the arbitral tribunal in his favour, for the reason of the said order being toothless and unenforceable.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has urged, that this petition is maintainable because the petitioner is remediless in the event of violation by the respondent of the interim order passed by the arbitrator; however if the same order is passed against the respondent by this court also, in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, in the event of breach thereof, the petitioner shall have remedy of contempt of court against the respondent. It is further contended that the Act is a complete code within itself and nowhere provides for the consequences of breach of such an order of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act; that under Section 36 of the Act it is only the award passed by the arbitral tribunal which is enforceable under the CPC and there is no such parallel provision for the enforcement of the order under Section 17 of the Act. It is further the contention that no petition for contempt of court also lies despite violation of the order of the arbitral tribunal and the provisions of the Contempt of Court 1979 also apply only to the willful disobedience of a judgment/order/direction of writ or other process of the court only - an arbitral tribunal is not a court. It is further submitted that even the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC apply to the breach of an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC only and Rule 2A also has no applicability to the orders made by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.

3. Reliance in this regard is placed on:

4. I may notice that the Supreme Court not only in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) but even subsequently in M.D. Army Welfare Housing Organisation Vs Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 1344, had held in para 56 of the judgment that under Section 17 of the Act no power is conferred on the arbitral tribunal to enforce its order nor does it provide the judicial enforcement thereof.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has argued that the interim order of the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act will merge in the final award and will then be enforceable. Hence he has argued on the merits of the matter.

6. Before considering the legal aspect aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to record that though the petitioner