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