The court emphasized that interim reliefs must demonstrate urgency and evidence of asset dissipation; unpleaded restraints violate natural justice, requiring adherence to procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid Appeals were taken up together for hearing. Since they arise out of the same Impugned Order and involve substantially similar grounds and issues, this Court proceeds to adjudicate them by way of the present consolidated judgment.

PROLOGUE:

2. These Appeals under Section 37 (2)(b) of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act have been preferred assailing theCommon Order dated 14.10.2025, Impugned Order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in DIAC Case Nos. 9176/08-24 and 9136/08-24, DIAC Cases titled as Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indospirits & Ors. and Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indospirit Distribution Ltd. & Ors., respectively.

3. By the Impugned Order, the learned Arbitrator disposed of the Applications filed under Section 17 of the A&C Act by Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (the Claimant in both proceedings), Applications against two sets of Respondents in the aforesaid DIAC cases. In both Applications, extensive interim measures were sought.

4. The learned Arbitrator, in the Impugned Order, has succinctly recorded and clarified the nature of the reliefs claimed in the Section 17 Applications. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any ambiguity, the relevant extracts from the Impugned Order are reproduced below:

“1. The claimant, in the applications, besides pleading (i) existence of a prima-facie case in its favour for recovery of Rs.37,09,24,712/- and Rs. 1,52,78,64,477/-respectively along with interest and damages jointly and severally from the respondents; (ii) balance of convenience being in its favour; and, (iii) that it will suffer irreparable injury or loss in the event the interim relief sought is not granted, has also made specific pleadings of (a) risk of the respondents alienating their assets or their assets being confiscated of forfeited in other proceedings against them, rendering them financially incapable of giving effect to the award eventually made in favour of the claimant; (b) respondents, despite their fragile working capital extending long term loans and advances to undisclosed related parties, without there being legitimate business reasons therefor, (c)respondents deliberately diverting and or mis-appropriating funds; (d) respondents, despite receiving timely payments from their customers, not utilizing the same for on-going business operations or for reduction of their trade liabilities and instead making loans and advances to undisclosed related parties and consequently increasing the debt to their operational creditors; (e) respondents depleting their liquidity assets by channeling them for their own benefit; (f) respondents purchasing and selling vehicles to improperly divert funds; (g) respondents disposing/selling their mutual fund units; (h) respondents withdrawing profit exceeding their rightful share, constituting deliberate diversion of funds; (i) net worth of respondents falling, rendering them unavailable for any debts owed to their creditors; (j) respondents engaging in conduct which would lead to frustration of these arbitral proceedings if no security is created; and, (k) likelihood of alienation of assets by the respondents preventing the claimant's ability to enforce any potential award which may be granted in its favour.

2. On the aforesaid pleadings, the claimant has sought the following interim measures in case no. 2:

“a. Direct the Respondents to furnish a list of assets and liabilities, including bank statements for the