The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to implement measures of preservation of the corpus of the arbitration in line with the legal provisions, emphasizing the application of Order 21 Rule 22(l)(a) of the CPC in issuing warrants of attachment.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) - The decree-holder is before this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India partially assailing the order dated 3.11.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurugram on the ground that it has been passed with material irregularity by failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under Order 21 Rule 22 (l)(a) of the CPC. The Judge is seized of an execution application filed by the petitioner for issuing warrants of attachment against the respondents in implementation of the order passed by the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Arbitration Act') as amended up to date. The Arbitration Act confers power on the principal Civil Court at Gurugram to supervise and enforce the orders under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, where the venue of arbitration is within his jurisdiction although the corpus/property lies in the State of Assam.

2. The interlocutory order under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act was passed by the Arbitrator on 3.11.2019 granting interim measures of protection over matters falling in direction 10(a) therein related to shares with which the petitioner has no immediate concern, where the arbitrator held that he had no hesitation in allowing the application (S.17) restraining the respondents, their servants, nominees, directors and share holders of M/s Starline Hotels Limited situate at GS Road, Christian Basti in front of Mizoram House, Guwahati, Assam from doing the following acts :-

"(a) Transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in 2,80,000 shares of the Company bearing distinctive numbers.

xxxxxxxx

as also mentioned in the list attached as Annexure A to the application under section of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended up to date to any person in any manner till final disposal of the claim petition;..."

3. And more importantly, to abide by the following directions contained in Para No.lO(b) of the order of the Arbitrator restraining the respondents from :-

"Selling, transferring, leasing, alienating of parting with possession or creating any third party interest in the immovable property of Starline Hotels Limited being the "Hotel Grand Starline" situated at GS Road, Christain Basti in front of Mizoram House, Guwahati (Assam)-7881005 in any manner whatsoever till final disposal of the claim petition and charge is hereby created on the immovable property of Company Starline Hotels Limited being the "Hotel Grand Starline" situated at GS Road, Christian Basti in front of Mizoram House, Guwahati (Assam) 781005 to the tune of Rs.16,14,23,116.70 (Rupees Sixteen Crore Fourten Lakh Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Sixteen and Paise Seventy) being the balance sale consideration of transfer of 2,80,000 shares of Starline Hotels Limited and other claims in favour of the claimant and the charge be registered with the office of the concerned Registrar of Companies."

4. The arbitrator in sub para, (c) of his order, was conscious of the fact that an order of attachment before judgment is harsh and cannot be resorted to in a routine manner, In the light of this principle on the facts of the case he observed as follows:

"I am conscious of the fact that an order of attachment before judgment is a harsh step and same cannot be resorted to in a routine manner. This permission is empowered with drastic and extra ordinary power and such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. Tribunal should be satisfied about existence of a prima facie case and should also be satisfied that with a view to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree, the respondent was about to dispose of the whole or any part of subject matter of proceeding. "

5. Mr.Qayam-Ud-Din, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Order 21 Rule 22 (l)(a) of the CPC to submit that the approach of the learned District Judge, Gurugram was erroneous in issuing notice to the judgement debtors