As per case facts, the Appellant and Respondent entered into a Development Agreement. Disputes arose between them concerning project completion, sharing arrangements, and alleged non-compliance, leading to arbitration. During the ... arbitral proceedings, interim orders were issued, including a direction for the Appellant to deposit a significant sum as security for the Respondent's claim. A Receiver was also appointed who took possession of several unsold units. The Appellant then filed an application to modify the deposit order, contending that the Respondent's claim was already sufficiently secured due to subsequent realisations and the Receiver's actions. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected this modification application. The Appellant challenged this rejection, arguing the order was disproportionate and led to over-securing the Respondent's claim. The question arose whether the Arbitral Tribunal's discretionary order for interim security under Section 17, rejecting modification despite subsequent developments impacting the security amount, suffered from arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference under Section 37. Finally, the Court held that the determination of the quantum of security to be furnished falls squarely within the domain and discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court emphasized that such orders are protective in nature, ensuring an effective award. Considering the Respondent's assertion that the actual claim might be higher than initially stated, and that the deposited amount would remain secured in a bank pending final adjudication, the Court concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary, perverse, or unreasonable, thus dismissing the appeal.