The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC are not strictly applicable to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and the court's power under Section 9 of the Act is wide and not subject to the stringent provision of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.

Application No.1967 of 2014:-

This application has been filed to direct the respondent to furnish security to the tune of the amount pending, i.e., Rs.16,50,137.00 (Sixteen Lakh Fifty Thousand one hundred and thirty seven only).

Application No.1968 of 2014:-

2. This application has been filed to direct the respondent to furnish security to the tune of the amount pending, i.e., Rs.10,39,527.00 (Ten Lakh thirty nine thousand five hundred and twenty seven only).

Application No.1969 of 2014:-

3. This application has been filed to direct the respondent to furnish security to the tune of the amount pending, i.e., Rs.44,62,396.00 (Forty four Lakh sixty two thousand three hundred and ninety six only).

The facts leading to the filing of these applications are as under:-

4. The applicant had entered into a contract with the respondent company for carrying out plumbing & Sanitary Works in their "KGS-GREEN" residential development project at Trivandrum on 1.6.2011 for a consideration of Rs.63,18,536.00 (Inclusive of all taxes).

5. During the execution of the work, the applicant had raised periodic bills and the same have been submitted to the respondent for certification. The respondent had periodically certified the work done by the applicant and there has never been any dispute in the way or manner in which the work was done until their final bill submitted on 30.1.2012.

6. Further, the applicant had handed over the plumbing consumable materials on 8.2.2012 that were required by the respondent and specific invoice to that effect had also been raised. The amount claimed by the applicant for the 42 plumbing materials, viz., Rs.4,26,395.00 has been certified by the respondent on 8.12.2012.

7. On 30.1.2012, the applicant raised the final R.A. Bill 02 for Rs.12,23,742.00 but the respondent has not paid the amount due to the applicant till date. The applicant had given a letter, dated 24.2.2012 to the respondent demanding a sum of Rs.26,89,664.00 pertaining to two contracts and a sum of Rs.16,50,137.00 is relating to the above said contract.

8. Unless and until the applicant is granted protection, the applicant will be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated even if the arbitral award is ultimately decreed in their favour. Hence, the above applications have been filed for the relief as afore stated.

9. In the common counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that the above applications ought to have been dismissed in limine for the following reasons:-

a. These applications have been filed after the period of two years of the alleged debt supposedly due to the applicant and in such circumstances, the applicant has failed to state as to why urgent orders are required at present.

b. The respondent is a construction company, which is in a robust financial health and as such no application for furnishing security will lie in the present case.

10. In a rejoinder to the common counter affidavit filed by the applicant, it is stated that necessary pleadings and averments have been made in the present case for furnishing the security and therefore, it is not correct to state that the pleadings are insufficient.

11. When the application is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. do not apply.

12. With regard to two years delay in filing these applications, the applicant had expected that the respondent would repay the amount due and since even after the passing of nearly three years, as the hope had been belied by the act of the respondent, the applicant has now come forward with the above applications.

13. Heard both sides.

14. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was a contract between the applicant and the respondent for carrying out Plumbing & Sanitary Works. Though the work was completed and the final bill was certified by the respondent, yet the amount due to the applicant was not settled by the respondent and therefore, these applications have been filed under Sectio