M. Sathyanarayanan, J

1. The Appellants are Respondents 1 & 2 in Application No.6498 of 2010 filed by the Respondent herein/claimant. The said Application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘Arbitration Act’) praying for a prohibitory order directing the Appellants herein/Respondents in the said Application to furnish security to the tune of Rs.3,50,12,958/- or such other sum as this Court directs within such time this Court stipulates together with an order of conditional attachment and in the event of default, attachment of the property described in the schedule through the District Court pending initiation and disposal of the arbitral proceedings and the enforcement of the award.

2. The Respondent also filed Application No.6551 of 2010 praying for the relief of selling the vehicles, equipments and machineries in ‘as in where is’ condition in a public auction or a private treaty and to pay the sale proceeds to the Applicant.

3. Learned Judge, vide order dated 27th Jan., 2011, has taken into consideration the interim report of the Advocate Commissioner and the earlier order dated 16th Dec., 2010 made in Application Nos.6498 & 6551 of 2010 and passed an order directing the Advocate Commissioner to publish the sale notice in one vernacular newspaper and one English daily, which are having circulation in the local area and sell the 18 vehicles/equipments through public auction and also to file a report. The learned Judge also directed the Appellants’ herein/borrowers not to deal with any of the items lying in Medipally, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District and Jhurala Hydro Project, Mahaboob Nagar, Andhra Pradesh, in any manner.

4. Subsequently, on 7th Feb., 2011, this Court passed an order in Application No.6498 of 2010 directing the Appellants herein to furnish security to the tune of Rs.3,50,12,958/- within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, order of attachment will be passed without further reference to the Court. The learned Judge, while passing the order, has taken into consideration the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner dated 7th Feb., 2011, wherein it has been stated that the Appellant herein had sold the vehicles/equipments despite the orders passed by this Court and, therefore, directed the parties to appear before this Court on 14th Feb., 2011. Accordingly, the Appellants appeared and the 1st Appellant herein filed an Affidavit dated 14th Feb., 2011, stating that he has not violated the orders passed by this Court, as indicated by the Advocate Commissioner in the interim report filed and, further, stated that 6 vehicles are in the custody of Sri Durga Bhavani Turning Works, Vijayawada and also undertook not to remove the vehicles from the said work place pending further orders.

5. As per the grounds of this Appeal, the subject matter of challenge is the order dated 27th Jan., 2011, made in Application No.6498 of 2010 and a perusal of the order would disclose that the order was actually passed in Application No.6551 of 2010 permitting the Advocate Commissioner to sell the vehicles and equipments through public auction.

6. When it was pointed out to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, he made a submission that this Court should look into the substance than form and what was intended to be challenged is the order dated 7th Feb., 2011 made in Application No.6498 of 2010 in which the conditional order of attachment came to be passed and, therefore, the said order alone is the subject matter of challenge in this Appeal.

7. This Court heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent and is of the view that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the present proceedings are taken as the Appeal challenging the vires of the abovesaid order dated 7th Feb., 2011. However, this Court points out that the Counsel on record should have been careful while p