Relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is not limited to the property subject to the dispute, and interim protection can be granted to secure the awarded amount.

1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 27.1.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by the appellant (petitioner before the lower Court) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Arbitration Act, 1996') for grant of interim protection in the form of requiring the respondent to furnish appropriate security for recovery of Rs. 20 crores plus interest at the rate of 12 % annual from the date of award i.e. 23.10.2013 till the date of recovery was dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that a dispute arose between the parties out of the collaboration agreement dated 3.12.2007, entered into between the parties to develop Plot No. A-18, Industrial Area, Focal Point, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab, measuring about 5.5 acres or 26522.63 sq. yds. Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (Retd.), Presiding Arbitrator, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Liberhan (Retd.) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.C. Mittal (Retd.), was constituted by this Court in Arbitration Case No. 35 of 2011 titled as M/s. Raja Ram Corn Products (PB) Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. The Arbitral Tribunal passed the award, whereby it was held that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to forfeit the security amount of Rs. 10 crores and recover future amount of Rs. 20 crores with 12% interest from the date of award till the date of recovery from the respondent. It is further stated that respondent filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 against the said award, which are still pending before the District Courts, Chandigarh.

3. It is stated by the appellant/petitioner that to defeat the amount awarded to the appellant/petitioner, the respondent-Company is transferring its assets. The respondent-Company has given latest advertisement dated 22.9.2013 in the 'The Tribune', wherein it is selling/transferring/leasing its assets, such as group housing building duly constructed, spread over 27 acres with approximately 1089 apartments in the name of Parikrama Group Housing, Opposite Junior St. Xavier School, Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana) and Suncity Business Centre, built and constructed on Chandigarh-Ambala Road, Zirakpur with total area of 1,60,000 sq. feet approximately. Respondent is having registered office located at New Delhi, but the property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that if the award passed in favour of the appellant/petitioner is ultimately upheld, it will not be satisfied.

4. In reply, respondent opposed the application on the ground that under the guise of claiming interim measures, the appellant/petitioner is seeking to execute the award, particularly when the objection petition against the award is pending. The present application is nothing, but a counter blast to the objection petition filed by respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside the arbitral award, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The appellant/petitioner wants permanent protection to enforce the award, which is not permissible under law. The appellant/petitioner has failed to fulfil three conditions of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, to avail the remedy sought for in the present petition. It was stated that the property of Parikrama Group Housing Society in Panchkula and Suncity Business Centre at Zirakpur are not the subject matter of the award nor the same are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent is a multi-crore company and well established in the business of real estate. Projects worth several thousand crores are under execution. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent would dispose off the property to avoid its liability.

5. Learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissed the application, inter-alia, on the ground that Section 9 of the Arbi