5. … However, unless and until the conditions mentioned in Order 38 Rule 5 CPC are satisfied such an order could not have been passed by the commercial court which has been passed by the commercial court in the present case, which has been affirmed by the High Court. While it is an undisputed position that the power of a court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to frame orders for attachment or require the making of a deposit draws sustenance from the principles which are attracted onto Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The said position is made clear in the decision of the Supreme Court in Essar House case 43, which holds that a court under Section 9 would not withhold relief on mere technicality and that the applicant is not required to prove actual attempts to deal with, remove, or dispose of the property. As per Essar House case 44, even a strong possibility of diminution would suffice for granting relief under Section 9.