Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Dushyant Dave and Shyam Divan Sr. Adv., Ms. Smita Bankoti, Anirudh and Devendra Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C.A. Sundaram and Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Arvind Kumar, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Mahesh Agarwal, Gopal Jain and Mrs. Poonam Prasad, Advocates.

Key Points: - Interim measures under Section 9 are not independent of established injunction principles and must consider balance of convenience, prima facie case, irreparable injury, and just and convenient grounds. (!) (!) (!) - The court may grant orders preserving or protecting subject matter of arbitration, including injunctions or other measures, and such powers are to be exercised with regard to supportive role of courts in arbitration. (!) (!) - Specific Relief Act provisions interact with Section 9 where injunctions are involved; the court cannot ignore applicable relief principles when granting interim protection. (!) (!) - The court’s approach to interim relief should be guided by well-settled principles of injunctions and the substantive relief sought, ensuring not to overstep into merits or final relief. (!) (!) (!) - Appointment of arbitrator and expeditious arbitration can be directed by the Supreme Court where arbitration proceedings are pending or unresolved. (!)

What is the scope and limits of the court’s power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in granting interim measures?

What factors govern the grant of interim relief under Section 9, including balance of convenience, prima facie case, irreparable injury, and applicability of the Specific Relief Act?

What constitutes the relationship and balance between court intervention and arbitral tribunal proceedings in interim measures, and when should the court appoint an arbitrator?