The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the necessity of reasoned orders, and the legal principles related to the authority of the authorized representative of a company.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner in an O.P. filed before the District Court under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That petition was moved for attachment of certain properties. The respondent herein entered appearance in that petition and sought time for filing objection.

2. A petition was filed before this Court as O.P. (C) No. 222/2013 and in that petition the respondent made an undertaking that they will not transfer or encumber the properties until the disposal of the petition pending in the Court below. That undertaking was accepted and recorded by this Court in O.P. (C) 222/2013. While disposing of that O.P. this Court directed the parties to appear through their counsel before the Court below on 15-2-2013. On 14-2-2013, the respondent herein filed I.A. 155/2013 alleging that the authorised signatory of the petitioner is an imposter and that no such person is residing in the said address and he requested the court to issue a direction to the person who appeared for the petitioner as the authorised representative in Court. Ext. P4 is that order which reads:-

"The respondent represented. The authorised representative of the petitioner Mr.Anilkumar is directed to appear before the court for hearing to 12-04-2013".

No reason has been stated in this order. Hence, this one line order passed by the court below cannot be treated as an order in the eye of law, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits. The order is totally bereft of reasoning.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below did not advert to the fact that earlier the petitioner herein had moved this Court by filing O.P.(C) 222/2013 for getting an order of attachment and in that petition the respondent herein made an undertaking that they will not transfer or encumber the properties mentioned in the petition. That undertaking was accepted and recorded by this Court. Ext.P1 is the copy of that judgment in O.P. (C) 222/2013. When that O.P.(C) was pending before this Court the respondent had no contention that the authorised signatory Mr.Anilkumar.S. who represented the petitioner/Company is not an authorised representative or that he was an imposter.

4. A contention was raised by the respondent that no such person is residing in the address shown in the petition. Ext.P2 is the petition filed by the respondent before the Court below seeking direction to the signatory-Mr.Anilkumar to be present before Court with identity proof for cross--examination. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent before the court below. The fact that Mr. Anilkumar.S. had represented the petitioner herein, in other matters and that he was also representing other foreign companies as the authorized representative were stated in detailed in the counter affidavit filed by him.

5. It was contended inter alia that in the cause title to the Arbitration O.P. 323/2012 in which the interim order of attachment was sought, in the address instead of "Giri Nagar" it was shown as "Gandhi Nagar". It was stated to be an inadvertent mistake. It was pointed out that in other places in the affidavit filed in that petition it was correctly shown as "Giri Nagar". It was also pointed out that in so many other petitions filed by him before the District Court and also before this Court his place of address was shown as Giri Nagar. Therefore, it was clearly an inadvertent typographical error which could not have been blown up out of proportion to contend that there is no such person as Anilkumar, residing in the address furnished in the Arbitration O.P.

6. In spite of the detailed Explanations and other factors stated in the counter affidavit the learned Addl. District Judge did not state anything about those aspects in the impugned order (Ext. P4) but one lone order as quoted above was passed which itself is sufficient to hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits.