O.A.No.1207 of 2010 VINOD K.SHARMA, J. This application under Sec.9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act has been filed by the applicant to secure the amount in arbitration. 2 The facts pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the applicant company is manufacturer of prawn feeds. Mr.B.V.Ramana Reddy, the Proprietor of M/s.PSVR Agencies, was appointed as sole distributor of the prawn feed, manufacturerd by the applicant company. 3 The case of the applicant is that a sum of Rs.26,55,223.19 (Rupees twenty six lakhs fifty five thousand two hundred and twenty three and paise nineteen only) was due and payable to the applicant. Mr.B.V.Ramana Reddy died, and the property shown in Schedule to Judges summons stands inherited by the respondents, i.e. widow and sons of late B.V.Ramana Reddy. 4 The applicant in order to recover the amount, filed the claim petition before the arbitrator which is being contested by the respondents, wherein, a counter claim for a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs only) is raised. 5 It is not in dispute that arbitration proceedings are in progress. The applicant has filed this application to secure the amount in arbitration by impleading wife and two sons of the deceased B.V.Ramana Reddy. The two sons have gone abroad, and not likely to come back. Whereas the respondent/wife has disposed of two of the properties inherited, and is taking steps to enter into join joint venture agreement with respect to remaining properties. 6 The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the applicant is that, if the inherited property is not attached during pendency of the arbitration proceedings, prejudice is likely to be caused to the applicant, as it will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It will not be possible to execute the award against the respondents. 7 The application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by contending, that the present application under Sec.9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is not competent against the respondent, as Sec.40(1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, could be invoked only in the event of pending arbitration proceedings, and the arbitration agreement will not binding on the legal representative otherwise. 8 This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the reason that word used in Sec.40(1) of the Act, is the arbitration agreement and not arbitration proceedings. 9 It is well settled law that interpretation that the word used in statute have read as mentioned, unless it is clear and unambiguous. The word agreement cannot be read as proceedings, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. 10 This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that in fact it is the applicant which owes money to the respondent, as per counter claim, therefore, no ground is made out for grant, any interim measures, as the claim raised is false, and based on wrong maintenance of accounts by the applicant. 11 The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the applicant does not have any prima facie case in support of the relief. 12 On consideration, I find this application deserves to succeed. 13 It is not in dispute that M/s.PSVR Agencies was distributor of the applicant company, and that the properties of late B.V.Ramana Reddy has been inherited by the respondents. This would be clear from the counter claim, filed by the respondent claiming refund of Rs.32 lakhs, said to have been paid in excess to the applicant. 14 Keeping in view of the fact that two of the properties inherited by the respondents stand disposed off and one remaining property inherited is also likely to be put under joint venture with the third party, therefore, prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant. 15 However, it is not necessary to attach the properties to interfere with the joint venture by the respondent, as the interest of the applicant, can be protected by directing the respondent to furnish security to the satisfaction of the arbitrator to secure the amount claimed in the arbitration. 16 It is also made clear that it will also be open to the respondent to seek security for the counter claim if so advised, in accordance with law, by moving application under Sec.17 of the arbitration & Conciliation Act, as the arbitral tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to grant interim measures. 17 Consequently, this application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 25.03.2011 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vaan VINOD K.SHARMA, J. vaan O.A.No.1207 of 2010 25.03.2011