1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2009 (Indusi nd Bank Ltd. through Sanjay Madhaw Khatnani vs. M/s. Rajeshwar Goods Transport Services & Ors.) WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2009 (Indusi nd Bank Ltd. through Sanjay Madhaw Khatnani vs. M/s. Rajeshwar Goods Transport Services & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2009. Heard Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant. The application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act) moved by the appellant before District Court for interim measures like direction to deposit the amount in dispute and its investment have been rejected by the Principal District Judge, Akola, after holding that no prima facie case was even made out. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the observations of the learned Principal District Judge clearly show non application of mind because Section 9 of the Arbitration Act does not contemplate any such requirement. The reliance is also being placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. vs. Sanatan 2 Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2005 (2) Mh. L.J. 850, to contend that the party can move such an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, during the subsistence of arbitral proceedings. The maintainability of application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is not in dispute in present matter. The leaned Principal District Judge, has found that the allegations are not prima facie credit worthy. I have perused the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act as moved and I find that allegations are too vague to deserve any credence. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported at AIR 2007 SC 2563, application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is required to be dealt with on same lines as an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 or under Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. In view of this position, I find that the approach of Principal District Judge cannot be stated to be contrary to the provisions of the Arbitration Act and no case is being made out warranting interference in limited jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Both 3 these appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.