Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Alok Saraf – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sundar Nangalia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against an order dated September 10, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in AP-COM 726 of 2025, an application filed by the appellants under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “1996 Act”). By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge refused to grant ad interim protection as sought by the appellants on the ground that such protection cannot be granted without permitting the respondents to disclose their stand on affidavit “for lack of prima facie case and absence of balance of convenience”.
2. The brief backdrop of the case is that the appellants (for short, the “ASA Group”) and the respondents (for short, the “EPI Group”) had entered into certain transactions on the basis of the terms and conditions recorded in the minutes of a meeting held between them on November 15, 2015, and an agreement dated October 11, 2018, signed by the appellant no. 1, Alok Saraf on behalf of the ASA Group, and one Vijay Agarwal, on behalf of the EPI Group.
3. Disputes having arisen between said two Groups relating to such transactions, those were sought to
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interim relief after an arbitral award but before enforcement, irrespective of concurrent execution proceedings.
Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, Section 9 of the Arbitration Act prohibits further applications for interim relief unless the party shows that the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
The award holder can seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 until the complete satisfaction of the award.
The court upheld the validity of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural rules is not mandatory if a prima facie case exists.
An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be maintained post-arbitral award until satisfaction of the award, but the court retains discretion on whether to entertain ....
The court reinforced that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to invalid proceedings, hence, a new arbitrator must be appointed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
