ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C.-Order 21 Rule 46A and 46C Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, =This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Sec.9(ii)(a),(b) (c) & (e) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the applicant, for issuance of prohibitory order restraining the Garnishees from making the payment upto a limit of Rs.2,73,11,000/- (Rupees two crores seventy three lakhs and eleven thousand only) and consequently, direct the Garnishees to deposit the amount so withheld into this Court, pending enforcement of the award that may ultimately be passed by the sole Arbitrator =The provisions of Order 21 Rule 46A and 46C cannot apply to proceeding under Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as underlying principle of Order 21 Rule 46A to 46C can be invoked after passing the decree, as the words used are judgment debtor and not debtor or parties. = Even on the admitted facts pleaded in this case, it can safely be said that this application is nothing but misuse of process of Court, as application framed under Sec.9 of the Act, is not competent in this Court for want of jurisdiction and for the reason that order against Garnishee can be passed to execute a decree. " The argument that the power under Section 9 of the Act is independent of the Specific Relief Act or that the restrictions placed by the Specific Relief Act cannot control the exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act cannot prima facie be accepted. The reliance placed on Firm Ashok Traders & Anr. Vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja & Ors. [(2004) 3 S.C.C. 155] in that behalf does not also help much, since this Court in that case did not answer that question finally but prima facie felt that the objection based on Section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act may not stand in the way of a party to an arbitration agreement moving the court under Section 9 of the Act. The power under Section 9 is conferred on the District Court. No special procedure is prescribed by the Act in that behalf. It is also clarified that the Court entertaining an application under Section 9 of the Act shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose and in relation to any proceedings before it. Prima facie, it appears that the general rules that governed the court while considering the grant of an interim injunction at the threshold are attracted even while dealing with an application under Section 9 of the Act. There is also the principle that when a power is conferred under a special statute and it is conferred on an ordinary court of the land, without laying down any special condition for exercise of that power, the general rules of procedure of that court would apply. The Act does not prima facie purport to keep out the provisions of the Specific Relief Act from consideration. No doubt, a view that exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act is not controlled by the Specific Relief Act has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The power under Section 9 of the Act is not controlled by Order XVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a view taken by the High Court of Bombay. But, how far these decisions are correct, requires to be considered in an appropriate case. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the submissions made in this case, we are not inclined to answer that question finally. But, we may indicate that we are prima facie inclined to the view that exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act must be based on well recognized principles governing the grant of interim injunctions and other orders of interim protection or the appointment of a receiver."