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 be resolved through arbitration. However, the decision dated March 16, 2021, arrived at by one Sanjay Kumar Seksaria, who acted as Arbitrator, were not acceptable to the parties. The parties thus mutually decided to treat such decision as null and void and agreed to reach an amicable settlement by referring the matter to mediation by one Mr. Rajeev Ginodia, Advocate.

4. The said mediation culminated in a Memorandum of Settlement dated September 10, 2024, signed by all the parties.

5. Subsequently, on the allegation that the respondents (EPI Group), had violated the terms of the settlement, the appellants put the Settlement Agreement into execution, by treating the same as an award, thereby giving rise to EC (COM) No.9 of 2025. The said execution case, however, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated May 20, 2025, primarily on the premise that, in view of Clause 50 of the Settlement Agreement containing a provision for arbitration, the same cannot be held to be an award and cannot be executed as such.

6. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal, bearing APOT No. 160 of 2025, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the dismissal of the appeal but later withdrew the same.

7. However, an independent SLP, taken out against the order dismissing the execution case, is pending at the behest of the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notices were issued in respect of the same; however, no interim order has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. Meanwhile, the appellants took out the present application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, giving rise to AP (COM) No.736 of 2025, in connection with which the order impugned in the present appeal was passed.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants argues that Section 9 of the 1996 Act envisages interim measures to be granted before or during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the 1996 Act. It is contended that the expression “enforced” signifies complete satisfaction of the award and not the mere filing of the execution petition. In support of such submission, learned senior counsel cites a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the matter of B.M Insulation Private Limited v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Private Limited (Arb Appln No. 374 of 2025 and Arb Appln No.628 of 2025), where the said Bench upheld the above proposition and overruled the contrary ratio of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Gopuram Enterprises Ltd, Chennai v. Integrated Finance Company Ltd, Chennai, reported at 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16559, relied on by the respondents.

10. While doing