judgment of the Madras High Court in Gopuram Enterprises (supra)1 where it was held that however wide the powers conferred on a court under Section 9 of the 1996 Act may be seen to be, such powers may not extend to issuing orders for discovering the assets of an award debtor. Order XXI of the CPC, that provides for execution, carries the necessary provisions for such purpose and section 9 of the 1996 Act cannot be enlarged to incorporate the wide authority that an executing court has to aid the award holder, who metamorphoses as a decree holder by the legal fiction contained in Section 36(1) of the 1996 Act, to seek or obtain orders of such nature or of arrest or detention of the award debtor or the sequestration of its assets and properties. It was further held that the quality of orders that can be passed under Section 9 of the Act are substantially different from the quality of orders that may be passed in course of execution. While the emphasis in Section 9 is to the subject-matter of the arbitration and may even, charitably, be seen to cover the subject-matter of the award, orders in the nature of discovering assets of the deemed judgment debtor or requiring him to file an affidavit of assets and the like may not be seen within the ambit of the authority available under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. The Act of 1996, it was held, covers all things pertaining to arbitration and operates between the commencement of the arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act of 1996 and the conclusion of all matters pertaining to the arbitration before Section 36 of the Act kicks in, so to say, and renders the award enforceable.
