Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 449

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Haresh N. Sanghavi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 29972/2015) With Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26876/2014) And Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 11139 of 2020)
Decided On : 24-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Gayatri Mishra, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Shruti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR Ms. Arushi, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Ms. Yashika Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Piyush Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Naina Garg, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv. Mr. Ritul Tandon, Adv. Mr. Onkar Nath Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ranu Purohit , AOR Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Yadunath Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Acharya, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Ms. Nandni Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jasvinder Choudhary, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. Suraj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Litoria, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Solanki, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, AOR Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, AOR

Unsuccessful party in arbitration can maintain Section 9 petition post-award before enforcement, as 'a party' means any party to arbitration agreement without successful/unsuccessful distinction; higher threshold applies.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Post-award interim measures - Petition under Section 9 at post-award stage by party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings held maintainable - Expression ‘a party’ defined under Section 2(h) means any party to arbitration agreement, without distinction between successful or unsuccessful - No bar on unsuccessful party seeking interim measures after award but before enforcement under Section 36 - Object of Section 9 to ensure parties can approach court for protection of subject matter or amount in dispute till judicial process culminates - Sections 34, 36(2) operate in distinct spheres from Section 9 - Premises of prior judgments restricting relief to successful parties untenable post recognition of power to modify severable awards - Even purposive interpretation supports availability to any party - Threshold for grant of relief higher for unsuccessful parties guided by prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury - Views denying relief to unsuccessful parties do not lay down good law. (Paras 2, 28-62)

(B) Statutory interpretation - Where language plain and unambiguous, court bound by literal meaning without modulation based on outcome of proceedings - Rule of purposive construction inapplicable absent absurdity or manifest injustice - Courts interpret but do not amend statutes. (Paras 28, 55-58)

Facts of the case:
Batch of appeals arising out of special leave petitions against orders dismissing appeals under Section 37 by relying on prior judgments holding unsuccessful party cannot maintain petition under Section 9 post-award.

Findings of Court:
Unsuccessful party entitled to invoke Section 9 post-award subject to higher threshold; one appeal disposed of, others listed for merits.

Issues: Substantial question whether petition under Section 9 post-award by unsuccessful party maintainable; interpretation of ‘a party’; interplay with Sections 34, 36.

Ratio Decidendi: Plain language of Section 9 permits any party to seek interim measures post-award before enforcement; no contextual variation of ‘party’; protects rights pending challenge where award may be set aside, modified or lead to fresh arbitration; distinguishes from UNCITRAL Model Law; higher caution for unsuccessful applicants. Result : Judgments denying Section 9 relief to unsuccessful parties overruled; appeals allowed in principle.

Table of Content
1. post-award section 9 maintainability for unsuccessful party questioned. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. unsuccessful party entitled to section 9 pending section 34. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. only successful party protects award fruits via section 9. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. 'party' includes unsuccessful without contextual modulation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. section 9 interim relief until section 36 enforcement. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. section 9 distinct from sections 34, 36 remedies. (Para 42 , 43)
7. award modification power undermines prior restrictive judgments. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
8. compelling cases allow unsuccessful party interim protection. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
9. hindustan construction not binding on section 9. (Para 53 , 54)
10. literal interpretation for unambiguous statutory language. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
11. higher threshold for unsuccessful party's section 9 relief. (Para 59 , 60)
12. unsuccessful parties may invoke post-award section 9 cautiously. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

2. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the present batch of appeals is whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at the post-award stage, by a party that has lost in the arbitral proceedings and has no enforceable award in its favour, is maintainable in law?

CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS

3. While Bombay High Court ( Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd. , 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481), Delhi High Court ( Nussli Switzerland Ltd. vs. Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 , 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4834 as well as National Highways Authority of India vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr. , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4810), Madras High Court (A. Chidambaram vs. S. Rajagopal and Ors., OA No. 843 of 2024) and Karnataka High Court (Smt. Padma Mahadev & Ors. vs. M/s. Sierra Constructions Private Limited, COMAP No. 2 of 2021, dated 22nd March 2021) have held that a party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings cannot maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Act, Telangana High Court [M/s Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd & Anr. vs. National Institute of Tourism & Hospitality Management (NITHM), 2019 SCC OnLine TS 1765], Gujarat High Court [GAIL (India) Ltd. vs. Latin Rasayani Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14836] and Punjab & Haryana High Court [M/s DLF Home Developers Ltd. vs. M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., FAO-CARB-51-2024 (O&M), dated 21st February, 2025] have taken a contrary view and held that a party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings can maintain a petition under of the Act.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF MR. K.M. NATARAJ, ASG AND MR. ABHIMANYU BHANDARI, SR. ADV.

4. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned senior counsel, submitted that the Bombay High Court by the impugned order in SLP (C) No. 29972 of 2015 dismissed the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Act by placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Dirk India (supra). They submitted that in Dirk India (supra), the Bombay High Court held that a party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings cannot maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Act. According to them, the Court reasoned that the purpose of interim measures under of the Act, post-award, is confined to protecting the ‘fruits of arbitral proceedings’, since under Section 34 of the Act, the Court may either set aside or uphold the award but cannot reverse the findings of the arbitral tribunal. Consequently, as an unsuccessful party is not entitled to any ‘fruits of arbitral award’, it cannot seek interim relief under of the Act.

5. They, however, contended that the judgment in Dirk India (supra) does not lay down good law. According to them, the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 449

Unsuccessful party in arbitration can maintain Section 9 petition post-award before enforcement, as 'a party' means any party to arbitration agreement without successful/unsuccessful distinction; higher threshold applies.

Cases Referred (8)

Related Judgments

Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. VS Haresh N. Sanghavi - 2026 Supreme(SC) 449

A. Chidambaram vs S. Rajagopal - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 5053

A.Chidambaram vs S.Rajagopal - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 5148

Eros International Media Limited vs 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71650

K. Punniyamoorthy VS Ondraga Entertainment - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2967

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs Larsen & Toubro Limited - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3757

Corvine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Srinivasulu Kanday - 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1397

B.M.Insulation Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. T. L. Ramanathan vs Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited A Private Limited Company, Represented by its Authorised Signatory - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43539

Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. VS Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(SC) 576

M/S NAVEEN AUTO STORE SOLE PROPRIETARY vs MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2236