Interim relief under Section 9 requires showing real apprehension of irreparable loss; mere speculation does not justify injunctions against debtor actions.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd ("IHFL") has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). The prayer clause in the petition reads thus:

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the grounds pleaded above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) direct the Respondent Nos. 1-11 to deposit the total outstanding amount of INR 14,38,44,59,993 (Indian Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Eight Crores Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Three only) as of January 21, 2021, along with pending TDS of INR 16,58,51,625 (Indian Rupees Sixteen Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundredand Twenty Five Only) due and payable under eighteen loan agreements entered into with the Petitioner (collectively, "Loan Agreements") with the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court;

b) alternatively, an injunction against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 12- 26 from selling, transferring, alienating, creating any third-party rights or interests in or dealing with the properties furnished as security to the Petitioner for securing the loans aggregating to INR 1327,36,92,800 (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Seven Crore Thirty Six Lakh Ninety Two Thousand and Eight Hundred Only), being the disbursed amounts under the Loan Agreements, pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings; and

c) an injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from making any payment to any third party or inter se transferring any funds and assets between its group I associate companies, and/or providing any financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to meet the obligations of any of the Respondent No. 1 s promoters, directors, personal or corporate guarantors, pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings;

d) an injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from making any payment to any third party or inter se transferring any funds andassets between its group/associate companies, and/or providing any financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to meet the obligations of any of the Respondent No. 1 s group/associate companies (including but not limited to Ambience Private Limited) or their promoters, directors or personal I corporate guarantors, pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.

e) grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (a)- (d);

f) award reasonable costs of this petition; and/or

g) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appear for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appears for the respondents. Mr. Sethi opposes issuance of notice in the petition, whereas Mr. Nayar and Mr. Maninder Singh seek issuance of notice and grant of ad interim relief as sought in prayer (e) in the petition, in terms of prayers (c) and (d) thereof. Arguments were limited, therefore, to this aspect.

3. I am not examining, therefore, whether, prima facie, any case for directing deposit of any amount, by any of the respondents, as prayed in prayer (a) in the petition, is made out or not. The arguments before me were restricted to the prayer to injunct, ad interim and pending decision of the Section 9 petition, Responden