An unsuccessful party in arbitration cannot invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for interim relief post-award as the provision aims to protect the successful party's interests.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

O.A.No.843 of 2024 has been filed seeking an interim injunction restraining the 5^th respondent and their men, agents, servants or any other persons claiming through them or authorised by them, from in any manner entering into a contract, transaction or deed or in any manner from dealing, creating encumbering and from parting with possession of the said property described in Schedule A hereunder owned by the applicant, pending hearing and disposal of the petition to be filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

2.A.No.776 of 2024 has been filed directing respondents 1 and 2 to furnish security equivalent to the value of the claim filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, failing which, this Court may be pleased to direct attachment of the property described in the Schedule B to H hereunder owned by the respondents 1 and 2 worth about Rs.5 crores herein pending disposal of the petition to be filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in continuation of the earlier order of this Court dated 26.02.2018.

3.This Court, by an order dated 30.10.2024, passed an ex-parte order even before notice was ordered to the respondents, granting ad-interim injunction as prayed for and also ordered attachment of property as prayed for. The respondents have entered appearance and arguments are advanced before me in respect of Interlocutory Applications alone.

4.I have heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Sagadevan and Mr.Aditya Sarangarajan, learned counsel for the applicant in both the applications and Mr.K.Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Mayurapriyan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, for the 5^th respondent.

5.At the outset, Mr.K.Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would submit that both the applications are not maintainable under Section 9 and they ought to be dismissed in limine.

6.Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the primary question that falls for consideration is as to whether the applications under Section 9 are maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has no award in his favour and has challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is considering this issue as to whether only a successful party in the arbitration proceedings is entitled to seek interim relief from the Court and not an unsuccessful party, under of the Act.

7.Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would take me through the language employed under Section 9 . The same is extracted hereunder for easy reference.

“9.Interim measures, etc., by Court.- (1) A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 , apply to a Court:-

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or (ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any proper