ORDER :

S.M.Subramaniam J.

The Full Bench of this Court is called upon to clarify the scope of the word ‘enforced’ used in Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. Differing views emerged on the interpretation of the word ‘enforced’ under Section 9. The Division Bench of this Court in Gopuram Enterprises Limited Vs. M/s.Integrated Finance Company Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16559 read the word ‘enforced’ as ‘enforceable’ thereby giving a restricted meaning to the scope of Section 9 and limiting the time frame provided under sub-section (3) of Section 34. On the other hand, a learned Single Judge of this Court had relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Dirk India Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited, 2013 SCC Online Com 481, which in turn was taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Construction Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India, (2020) 17 SCC 324 and interpreted the meaning of the word ‘enforced’ to mean ‘until the complete satisfaction of the award’. The order of the learned Single Judge was interfered by the Division Bench in OSA (CAD) No.94 of 2023, only on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not deal the matter on merits and hence the matter was remanded back to the learned Single Judge to deal with it on merits. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that an application under Section 9 of the Act can be maintained Post-Award but before it is ‘enforced’ and its scope in Section 9 has been upheld by the Division Bench. Therefore, it is contended that divergent views are expressed by two Division Benches of this Court.

3. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this Court to seek clarity on the scope of the word ‘enforced’ used in Section 9 of the Act by formulating the following questions:

(a) When Section 9 of the Act provides for interim measures before the Court even post arbitral award, but before it is enforced, whether the word 'enforced' can be read down as 'enforceable' and thereby limit the scope of Section 9 of the Act?

(b) Whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be maintained even after the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act?

4. The interim measures as contemplated under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act comprises of three stages,

a) before arbitration 

b) during arbitration or 

c) at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36.

5. The reference questions are focussed on the third stage, which is interim measures sought post-award but before it is enforced. The Division Bench of this Court in Gopuram Enterprises’s case cited supra had interpreted the words ‘before it is enforced’ in Section 9 as to mean ‘enforceable’. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:

“2 ….The very wording of section 9 of the Act permits a post-award petition for interim measures to be relevant till such time that the award becomes enforceable. Though the relevant words used in the provision are “but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36”, such expression read in the context of section 36 of the Act that provides for enforcement implies that a party may apply to a Court for interim measures only till such time that the arbitral award becomes enforceable.”

6. However, the Division Bench of this Court in Eros International Media Limited Vs. 14 Reels Entertainment Private Limited and Another 2025:MHC:2771 had expressed a differing view from Gopuram enterprises’ case. The Division Bench instead relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Dirk India Private Limited case cited supra and held as follows:

“24. The language of Section 9(1) enunciates a distinct timeline specifically leaving no space for any further interpretation. The three specific scenarios enlisted includes, before, during