Court resolves conflicting High Court rulings, clarifies interim relief under Section 9 is maintainable even after award by a losing party
The Supreme Court has held that an unsuccessful party in arbitration proceedings can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the arbitral award.
The Court settled conflicting views expressed by various High Courts on this issue.
It held that a party does not lose the right to seek interim relief only because it failed in arbitration.
The issue arose at the post-award stage.
A party against whom an arbitral award had been passed sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Act.
Different High Courts had taken conflicting views on whether an unsuccessful party could seek such relief after the award.
Therefore, the matter reached the Supreme Court for clarification.
The petitioner argued that Section 9 permits interim measures before, during, and after arbitral proceedings.
It was submitted that the provision does not restrict relief to the successful party alone.
The petitioner further argued that denying post-award interim protection would weaken the purpose of Section 9.
According to the petitioner, interim relief may be necessary to protect rights pending enforcement or challenge.
The respondent opposed the maintainability of a Section 9 application by an unsuccessful party.
It argued that once an award is passed, interim protection should ordinarily benefit the award-holder.
According to the respondent, the award-holder may seek such protection for enforcement of the award.
The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Arbitration Act.
It particularly considered Sections 9 and 36.
The Court noted that Section 9 expressly allows courts to grant interim measures even after the arbitral award.
However, such power operates before enforcement of the award.
The Court observed that the language of Section 9 does not confine the remedy to the successful party.
It said the provision aims to protect the subject matter of the dispute.
It also ensures that the arbitral process and its outcome do not become ineffective.
Therefore, the Court held that an unsuccessful party can also seek interim protection in a proper case.
The Bench clarified that an unsuccessful party may need interim protection after the award.
This may become necessary when the party intends to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act.
The Court observed that denial of such relief may defeat justice in some cases.
The Supreme Court held that a Section 9 application remains maintainable even at the instance of an unsuccessful party after the arbitral award.
However, the Court clarified that relief will not follow automatically.
Courts must examine the facts and circumstances of each case.
They must also apply the settled principles governing interim measures.
Resolving the conflict, the Supreme Court held that the right to seek interim measures under Section 9 does not end merely because the applicant lost in arbitration.
The Court set aside the contrary High Court judgments.
It settled the legal position that an unsuccessful party may seek Section 9 relief after the award, before enforcement, subject to judicial scrutiny.
