arbitrator to pass an order under Section 17 of the Act against persons who are not parties to arbitration proceedings. In that regard, the Court held that the arbitrator cannot, under Section 17 of the Act, make an order to a person who is not a party to the arbitration proceedings but can only pass an order which may be addressed to a party to the arbitration and the order must relate to the protection of the subject matter of the dispute before the arbitrator. The observations made in the above judgment must, therefore, be understood in the said context. The Supreme Court was neither called upon nor did it decide the issue of enforcement of an interim order under Section 17 of the Act. Again, in the present case, the respondent had invoked the provisions of Section 9 of the Act to seek interim measures consistent with those contained in order made by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act, which clearly the respondent was entitled to do, in the wake of refusal on the part of the appellant to comply with or adhere to the measures as directed by the learned arbitrator in its interim order dated 2 October 2012. In fact, it is the case of the respondent that for a period of almost two years, the appellant did adhere to the directions contained in the interim order dated 2 October 2012. On 26 May 2014, the appellant threatened to disobey the directions contained in the interim orders, if the respondent did not apply for membership of the appellant's society within a period of seven days. Further, it is the case of the respondent that in the first week of June 2014, the appellant society made attempts to put its threat into effect and therefore, the respondent had no option than to invoke the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and seek interim measures. In such circumstances, there is no substance in
