ORDER : (NJS, J.) Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2024 passed in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) granting conditional order of attachment, the present Appeal has been preferred. The appellant is the respondent No.1 in the said application. 2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024. 3) The case of the petitioner as set out in the application may briefly be stated thus: 4) The petitioner is a Hong Kong company engaged in the business of owning and chartering out vessels. The respondents 1 to 3 are engaged in the sale and export of agricultural commodities such as rice. On 12.03.2021 the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 executed a fixture note / charter party agreement under which, the petitioner chartered the vessel MV HAN THAR to respondents 1 to 3. The fixture note, inter alia, provides for various terms and conditions and the demurrage rate was fixed at USD 7500 per day. It also provides for settlement of disputes between the parties through arbitration in Singapore. 5) The petitioner in terms of the contract carried the cargo as required under the fixture note from Kakinada to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. At the discharge port of Ho Chi Minh City, the vessel tendered its notice of readiness on 21.05.2021, the lay time got over on 26.05.2021 and discharging commenced only on 29.05.2021 and completed on 12.06.2021. As the time for discharge was only three days 16 hours, demurrages for 17 days 2 hours was to be paid and in view of the same, the petitioner sent statement of facts on 23.06.2021 to the 1 st respondent claiming demurrage of USD 128,409.74. An invoice dated 23.06.2021 for the said amount was also raised and as per the fixture note, the payment of demurrage was to be made within 15 days of submission of the documents i.e., by 07.07.2021. The payment was not made despite several reminders to the respondents 1 to 3 as also the legal notice dated 06.08.2021. An invoice dated 23.06.2021 for the said amount was also raised and as per the fixture note, the payment of demurrage was to be made within 15 days of submission of the documents i.e., by 07.07.2021. The payment was not made despite several reminders to the respondents 1 to 3 as also the legal notice dated 06.08.2021. The petitioner is entitled to the undisputed demurrage amount of USD 128,409.74 with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., the conduct of respondents 1 to 3 is that of a regular defaulter and there is a serious doubt about their financial health. 6) The petitioner, in view of the urgency and for the grounds stated in the petition, sought the reliefs pending resolution of the disputes through arbitration. 7) The learned single Judge while directing notice passed the following order dated 23.04.2024, the relevant portion which reads thus: “Issue notice to R-1 to R-3 to furnish security for the amount of USD 296,326.74 within 24 hours from the time of receipt of notice and simultaneously attach the cargo of rice of 1600 metric tones being loaded on to the vessel MV BULK MANARA in 4 th respondent Port and if the security is furnished as directed, the order of attachment shall be raised and in case the security is not furnished as directed, the attachment shall continue until further orders.” 8) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-1 st respondent Mr.Manojkhatri and the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. Perused the material on record. 9) The learned counsel for the appellant-1 st respondent, inter alia, contended that the order under challenge is not sustainable in as much as it is in the nature of a final order. It is his submission that the direction of the learned single Judge to furnish security for an amount of USD 296,326.74 within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the notice and simultaneously attaching the cargo of rice of 1600 Metric Tones, that too without hearing the 1 st respondent amounts to granting the final relief. Referring to Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC, he contended that the learned single Judge has passed the order under challenge in a mechanical manner without considering the parameters i.e., balance of convenience and irreparable loss for granting ex parte order of attachment. Referring to Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC, he contended that the learned single Judge has passed the order under challenge in a mechanical manner without considering the parameters i.e., balance of convenience and irreparable loss for granting ex parte order of attachment. 10) Learned counsel also contended that the claim for demurrages raised by the petitioner is in the nature of damages, which has to be adjudicated and that it is not a case of debt. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the decisions reported in Sanghi Industries Limited v Ravin Cables Ltd., and Another , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1329] ; Raman Tech. and Process Engineering Co., and Ors. V Solanki Traders , [ (2008) 2 SCC 302 ] ; Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund and Ors., v Kartick Das and Ors., , [ (1994) 4 SCC 225 ] etc. The learned counsel seeks to allow the Appeal contending that no prima facie case is made out, however, the learned single Judge went wrong in granting the order under challenge, more particularly in the absence of any plea of disposing of assets by the respondent. 11) Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned single Judge passed a conditional order of interim attachment and the submission that the same amounts to final order is not tenable. Referring to the relevant paragraphs in the petition i.e., para Nos.25 onwards, the learned counsel submitted that after taking into consideration the relevant aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner, the learned Judge granted the order under challenge and the respondents without even denying the factual pleadings had straight away filed the present appeal by raising some grounds and the same is not maintainable. He submits that in a Division Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 05.07.2024 in ICOMAA No.1 of 2024 ( TUF Metallurgical Pvt Ltd., v BSR (HK) Ltd.,) rejected similar contentions as advanced in the present case. 12) With reference to the contention about the claim for demurrages ,the learned counsel submits that as there was a delay at the discharge port, the petitioner is entitled for demurrage at the agreed rate as per the fixture note and there is no denial to the communications / emails of the petitioner in this regard. 12) With reference to the contention about the claim for demurrages ,the learned counsel submits that as there was a delay at the discharge port, the petitioner is entitled for demurrage at the agreed rate as per the fixture note and there is no denial to the communications / emails of the petitioner in this regard. He submits that as a prima facie case is made out before the learned single Judge and appropriate pleas about the balance of convenience and irreparable prejudice were raised in the petition the ingredients of Order 38 Rule 5 are satisfied. Even otherwise, the learned counsel submits that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Essar House Private Limited v Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219] , mere technicality of absence of averments would not come in the way of the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Act, and that proof of actual attempts to dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realization of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative. The learned counsel also states that the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal are in progress and as per the schedule fixed the same would concluded by 12.02.2025 and the counter claim of the respondent is also being heard. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Appeal. 13) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point for determination is “Whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 14) At the outset, it may be pertinent to state that elaborate arguments were advanced by the counsel on both sides. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-appellant is that the order under challenge is in the nature of a final order and the same was granted without notice. It is also his contention that the learned single Judge has passed the order under challenge without considering the prerequisites of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-appellant is that the order under challenge is in the nature of a final order and the same was granted without notice. It is also his contention that the learned single Judge has passed the order under challenge without considering the prerequisites of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. 15) In so far as the first contention is concerned, a reading of the order under challenge would make it clear that while directing notice, the learned Judge directed the appellant-respondent to furnish security for the amount and though ordered attachment of cargo simultaneously, had categorically mentioned that on furnishing the security, the order of attachment shall be raised. Thus, the order of attachment would continue only in the event of the 1 st respondent not furnishing the security for the amount mentioned in the order, but not otherwise. Under the said circumstances, the contention to the effect that the said order tantamounts to granting final relief cannot be accepted. 16) Further, the contention that the impugned order was passed without notice merits no acceptance. In TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd., v BSR (HK) Ltd., referred to supra, a Division Bench of this Court rejected the similar contention. In the said case it was, inter alia, urged that the order under challenge therein is vitiated by non-observation of principles of natural justice besides procedural violation under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC as well as Section 9 of the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “8. So far as the contention of the Appellant herein that the principles of natural justice are violated is concerned, we are not satisfied with the said argument inasmuch as in the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has granted 48 hours of time after receipt of the notice to offer security. It is true, the Order is silent as to the granting of an opportunity to furnish his explanation to the notice. We may say, though specifically such a mentioning is not there, offering explanation/objections to the show cause notice is inherent and intrinsic in the Notice, and therefore, it is made clear that the appellant has a right to submit his explanation/objections to the Notice. We may say, though specifically such a mentioning is not there, offering explanation/objections to the show cause notice is inherent and intrinsic in the Notice, and therefore, it is made clear that the appellant has a right to submit his explanation/objections to the Notice. Therefore, we make it clear that the appellant herein has a right to submit either objections/explanation as to why he need not furnish security for the amount mentioned in the impugned Order or appear and furnish security as directed by the Court.” 17) Be that as it may. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC provides for attachment before judgment and in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 (3) CPC, the Court may direct the conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the property so specified. Order 38 Rule 6 (2) of CPC provides an opportunity to the party / defendant to show cause or furnish required security and the property specified or any portion of it has been attached, upon which the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn, or make such other order as it thinks fit. Thus, the said provision makes it clear that the Court may pass ex parte order of attachment if it is of the opinion that the same is warranted on being satisfied prima facie that the property is likely to be disposed of. The defendant can appear before the Court and show cause why the attachment should be withdrawn. Though in the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon this Court that the order under challenge is in the nature of granting final relief, the same is an order of conditional attachment which would operate only in the event of not furnishing the security and cannot be treated as final order as such. 18) In the aforesaid view of the matter, that the order under challenge is not a final order and as Order 38 Rule 6 (2) of CPC provides for an opportunity to the respondent to seek for withdrawal of the attachment by showing cause, this Court deems it not appropriate to examine the various other contentions advanced with reference to the judgments, as the respondent is required to raise the same before the learned single Judge by filing counter traversing the petition averments. Suffice to state that the 1 st respondent-appellant may submit objections / explanation before the learned single Judge as to why it need not furnish security for the amount as ordered by the learned single Judge and seek withdrawal of the attachment. In the event the appellant adopts such course of action, it is needless to observe that the learned single Judge would pass appropriate orders in accordance with Law, by considering the rival contentions. Point is accordingly answered. 19) In the result, the Appeal is disposed of, with the above observation. No costs. 20) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.