R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

Is an application under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking an interim measure of protection, maintainable before the Court, after passing of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal but before it is enforced, in view of the provision contained in Section 9(3) of the Act? This question essentially falls for consideration in this appeal.

2. The facts of the case are not very much relevant here. Suffice it to state that, on reference of the dispute between the appellant and the respondent over dissolution of a partnership firm, an award was passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the appellant. Before initiating steps for enforcement of the award, the appellant filed an application under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act before the District Court, seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering five items of properties. The appellant alleged that the respondent was taking expeditious steps for alienation of the properties with a view to evade payment of money awarded to the appellant.

3. When the application came up for consideration before it, the District Court suo motu raised a question regarding the maintainability of it before the Court. Learned District Judge found that the appellant has got efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act and therefore, the application filed before it under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 9(3) of the Act. Learned District Judge also found that as the appellant has got equally efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act, the relief of injunction sought by him is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Learned District Judge further found that there is also bar under Section 38(3)(b) and (c) of the Specific Relief Act in granting injunction since the amount due is quantified as per the award. The District Court rejected the application filed by the appellant holding that it is not maintainable before the Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the respondent.

5. Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act provides that a party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a Court, for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the matters provided thereunder. Section 9(3) of the Act states that once the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted, the court shall not entertain an application under sub-section (1), unless the court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 efficacious.

6. Section 17(1)(ii) of the Act, after amendment by Act 3 of 2016, provides that a party may, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to the arbitral tribunal, for an interim measure of protection in respect of the matters provided thereunder. Section 17(2) of the Act states that, subject to any orders passed in an appeal under Section 37, any order issued by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 shall be deemed to be an order of the Court for all purposes and shall be enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were an order of the Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that after signing the award and communicating it to the parties, the Arbitrator becomes functus officio and thereafter, he is not empowered to pass any order granting interim relief. True, it has been the well-settled principle that once an award is made and signed, the Arbitrator becomes functus officio (See Satwant Singh Sodhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 2040). But, this principle now stands diluted by the amended provision contained in Section 17(1) of the Act, which empowers the Arbitral Tribun