Consequential or procedural arbitral directions fall outside Section 17 and are not appealable under Section 37(2)(b).

The appellant challenged, under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, orders dated 12 March 2026 and 9 June 2024 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

The order dated 9 June 2024 recorded a prima facie finding that a claim of ₹80,87,551 appeared to have been admitted by the appellant and directed the appellant to file an affidavit of assets.

It further permitted the appellant to seek appropriate directions if it needed to alienate assets in the ordinary course of business.

The appellant also challenged subsequent orders dated 26 February 2026 and 12 March 2026, which contained consequential or procedural directions.

The arbitral award had already been reserved by the time of the hearing.

Whether the orders directing the appellant-company to file an affidavit of its assets warranted appellate interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Whether the consequential and procedural orders dated 26 February 2026 and 12 March 2026 were appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Whether the Arbitrator’s directions required the appellant’s directors to disclose their personal assets or to deposit any amount during the arbitral proceedings?

The Court applied Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which permits an appeal against specified orders under Section 17 concerning interim measures.

It held that consequential or procedural directions which do not constitute orders falling within the scope of Section 17 are not appealable under Section 37.

The Court also considered Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but noted that the impugned order did not actually direct the appellant to deposit any amount; therefore, the issue of the legality of such a deposit did not arise at that stage.

An order requiring a company to disclose its assets through its directors does not, without more, require the directors to disclose their personal assets in their individual capacities.

The Court found no ground to interfere with the direction requiring the appellant-company to file an affidavit of its own assets.

The Arbitrator had made only a prima facie assessment that ₹80,87,551 appeared to have been admitted and had issued a limited protective direction, while preserving the appellant’s ability to seek permission for alienation of assets in the ordinary course of business.

The Court clarified that the affidavit was to be filed by the company through its directors and did not concern the directors’ personal assets.

It further held that the orders dated 26 February 2026 and 12 March 2026 were merely consequential or procedural and therefore did not fall within the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37.

Although Order XXXVIII Rule 5 had been referred to, no actual deposit had been ordered; any future direction requiring a deposit could be challenged on its own merits before the Tribunal.

The fact that the award had already been reserved also meant that the controversy had substantially become moot.

The Court upheld the Arbitrator’s limited direction requiring the appellant-company to file an affidavit of its assets and rejected the contention that the directors were required to disclose their personal assets.

The Court also held that the challenged consequential and procedural orders were not appealable under Section 37 and that no deposit had been directed at that stage.

The appellant was directed to expeditiously file its affidavit of assets in the format prescribed in Form 16A, Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Arbitral Tribunal.