Leave us a Message

Supreme Court Says Even an Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Interim Protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act

Overview

In this case, the Supreme Court came before an important question under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The issue was whether a party which has lost in the arbitration proceedings can approach the court for interim measures after the award has already been passed. 

Various High Courts across India had taken different views on the same issue. A few were of the opinion that only the successful party in an arbitration proceeding could seek interim protection after the award, while others held that the remedy under Section 9 is available to every party to the arbitration agreement. 

The Supreme Court was required to decide upon whether the words “a party” used under Section 9 was to be restricted only to the award-holder after the award had been passed. 

 

Facts of the Case

The matter came before the Supreme Court through a bunch of appeals arising from several decisions of the High Courts. The main issue, however, pertained to the Bombay High Court dismissing an appeal by relying upon its own judgement by the name “Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd..” In this case, it was held that if a party loses in arbitration, it has no “fruits of the award” to protect it thereafter. According to the same, the losing party could not seek interim measures under Section 9 after the award was passed. 

This view was challenged by the appellants before the Supreme Court Court. It was argued that if an arbitral award is set aside under Section 34, the original rights between the parties may revive and fresh arbitration proceedings might become necessary again. 

It was also argued that if interim protection is denied entirely, the losing party might suffer from prejudice when the challenge proceedings are still pending. This might involve prejudice as to the confidentiality of the documents, wrongful invocation of bank guarantees after the earlier interim protection has expired, etc. 

Since different opinions existed among several High Courts, the issue ultimately reached the Supreme Court for final determination. 

 

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the losing party in an arbitration proceeding can seek interim relief under Section 9 after the award has been passed.
  2. Whether the scope of the term “a party” under Section 9 can be restricted only to the award-holder. 
  3. Whether the scope of Section 9 is only limited to the protection of “fruits” of the award.
  4. Whether Section 9 and 36 of the Arbitration Act can operate independently. 

 

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that even a losing party can maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

It was observed that Section 9 simply uses the words “a party” and it does not restrict the remedy only to a successful party or an award-holder. It held that a court cannot add words into a statute as per its opinion, which the legislature itself never intended to insert. 

Rejecting the concept as to “fruits of the award,” the Court clarified that the scope of Section 9 is wider in nature, and it also protects the subject matter of arbitration and amounts in dispute. It was further explained that Section 9 and 36 operate in different scenarios. While Section 36 deals with enforcement of awards, Section 9 pertains to interim protection during arbitration related proceedings. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court overruled the views taken by different High Courts and clarified that post-award interim relief can also be sought by an unsuccessful party, though it must be granted carefully and only in applicable cases. 

Case reference:- Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi Civil Appeal No._______ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29972/2015) (DB, Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ., Delivered by Manmohan, J.)