1. While enforcing an interim measure ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal under S.17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), is the District Court entitled to pass any independent directions restricting the rights granted under the order passed by the Tribunal, is the short question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition.

2. Respondents availed a vehicle loan from the petitioner. Consequent to default in repayment of the loan, the account turned npa. The loan was recalled and arbitral proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against the respondent.

3. In the course of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under S.17 of the Act seeking permission to take possession of the vehicle. As per order dated 26.08.17, the Tribunal granted an order in favour of the petitioner permitting to take possession of the vehicle.

4. Seeking enforcement of the order, the petitioner approached the District Court under S.17(2) of the Act. The learned District Judge appointed a Commissioner to take possession of the vehicle and to hand over the same to the petitioner, in tune with the order passed by the arbitrator.

5. Pursua