Arindam Sinha,J. - (1.) The Court :-This arbitration petition for further interim measure is up for hearing and disposal.
(2.) The application was moved on 17th June, 2019 when following order was made :- Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner in this arbitration petition for interim measure. He submits, this petition is for further interim measure. He relies upon order dated 8th April, 2019 passed in appeal for view taken therein that although under section 17(1) in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the arbitral tribunal appears to have been vested with power to pass interim order after making of award but before it is enforced, harmonious reading of said provisions would require Court to pass interim measure under section 9. Petitioner is to demonstrate what happened after 8th April, 2019 for Court being moved to pass order of appointment of receiver as further interim measure List under heading 'For Orders' on 24th June, 2019.
(3.) Today, Mr. Sengupta submits, nothing happened after 8th April, 2019 except petitioner's continued apprehension that the subject matter of arbitration, being a vehicle, would be dealt with. On query from Court Mr. Sengupta submits, this apprehension was there with petitioner all along, since award declared petitioner to be the owner of the vehicle but its possession is with respondent award debtor. He submits, provisions in Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable for directions being made in aid of preserving the asset. He relies on judgement of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty Vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty and Ors. reported in AIR 1955 Madras 430, to paragraph 13 in which five principles for exercise of equity jurisdiction in appointing receivers were formulated as a view. He follows up with a judgement of Supreme Court in Parmanand Patel and Anr. Vs. Sudha A. Chowgule and Ors. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 127, to paragraphs 23 and 24. He lays particular emphasis on a sentence in paragraph 23, which is reproduced below:- ".... Ordinarily the Court would not appoint a Receiver save and except on a prima facie finding that the plaintiff has an excellent chance of success in the suit." ;