Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interim relief after an arbitral award but before enforcement, irrespective of concurrent execution proceedings.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the judgment delivered on 30.10.2025 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Original Application Nos.997 and 998 of 2025 and Arbitration Application No.1374 of 2025. Applicant in all the applications is the appellant in the present Original Side Appeals. All the applications have been instituted under Section 9(1)(d) of “the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996” [hereinafter referred as “Act, 1996”] praying for an interim relief.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the applications mainly on the ground that Section 9 application is not maintainable, since the appellant has already moved an Execution Petition before the competent Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of the Execution Proceedings before the Competent Court, application under Section 9 is not maintainable. Therefore, liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the Execution Court for securing appropriate interim relief or seeking enforcement of the arbitral award.

3. Since maintainability issue has been raised before the learned Single Judge, it necessitated this Court to first decide the maintainability of an application under Section 9 of the Act on institution of EP proceedings or during pendency of an Execution proceedings. This Court requested the respective learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis, to confine their arguments on maintainability instead of advancing comprehensive arguments on merits. The respective learned Senior Counsels agreed and proceeded.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.S.Raman, assisted by Mr.Vaibhav Rangarajan Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the scope of Section 9 cannot be restricted by judicial interpretation and the plain reading of the provision would indicate that even after passing off the arbitral award and before enforcement of such award under Section 36 of the Act, application seeking interim measure under Section 9 is maintainable. To substantiate the claim, he would rely on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dirk India Private Limited Vs. Maharastra State Electricity Generation Company Limited¹. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the Division Bench of Bomby High Court held that “When an interim measure of protection is sought before or during arbitral proceedings, such a measure is a step in aid to the fruition of the arbitral proceedings. When sought after an arbitral award is made but before it is enforced, the measure of protection is intended to safeguard the fruit of the proceedings until the eventual enforcement of the award. Here again the measure of protection is a step in aid of enforcement. It is intended to ensure that enforcement of the award 1 (2013) 7 Bom CR 493 results in a realisable claim and that the award is not rendered illusory by dealings that would put the subject of the award beyond the pale of enforcement. Now it is in this background that it is necessary for the Court to impart a purposive interpretation to the meaning of the expression “at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36”. Under Section 36, an arbitral award can be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. The arbitral award can be enforced where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired or in the event of such an application having been made, it has