Back
Home Care Retail Marts Case: Supreme Court Says Can Seek Section 9 Relief
In a significant clarification of under the , the has held that a party that loses an arbitration is not barred from invoking Section 9 of the Act. The Court, in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi (2026 INSC 415), rejected the restrictive interpretation that only a successful could approach a court for after the award is rendered. However, the Court equally emphasised that the mere ability to apply does not translate into an entitlement to relief; the faces a heightened threshold of “” before a court may exercise its discretion in its favour.
The judgment dismantles a line of High Court precedent that had effectively read a “winner-only” condition into Section 9. For over a decade, courts such as the in Dirk India Private Limited (2013) and the in Nussli Switzerland Ltd. v. Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games (2014) had held that post-award Section 9 is a mechanism to preserve the “fruits” of an arbitral award for the . The underlying logic was intuitive: if Party A wins and Party B threatens to dissipate assets, Party A needs protection; if Party A loses, what exactly is there to preserve? That reasoning, the Supreme Court now holds, conflates the question of with the question of .
The Statutory Starting Point
permits “a party” to seek from a court before, during, or after the arbitral proceedings, but before enforcement under . The definition of “party” in is deliberately outcome-neutral: it refers simply to a party to an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court observed that neither provision creates a distinction between a successful and an . To introduce such a distinction at the post-award stage, the Court held, would amount to rewriting the statute.
The Court underscored that the expression “a party” cannot be read as “an ” or “a ”. The language of the Act is clear, and the legislature chose not to qualify the term. Therefore, the threshold question of must be answered in favour of any party that meets the definition—regardless of the arbitral outcome.
Access Is Not Grant
The real contribution of Home Care lies in its careful delineation between and relief. The judgment acknowledges the legitimate concerns that drove the earlier restrictive approach: , risk of abuse, and potential for delay tactics. An could, in theory, file a challenge and simultaneously move under Section 9 to disrupt enforcement. But the Court holds that these concerns are best addressed at the stage of discretion, not at the stage of jurisdiction.
“Access to the statutory remedy is not equivalent to entitlement to the relief sought therein,” the Court observed. Traditional —, , and —remain applicable, but the post-award context fundamentally alters their application. For a , the adverse arbitral award is a powerful indicator that the party does not have a strong case on the merits. The court must therefore scrutinise the application with “”. The cannot approach the court as though the arbitration never happened; the tribunal’s determination must inform the judicial assessment.
A Functional, Not Binary, Approach
The Supreme Court’s reasoning shifts the inquiry away from a rigid winner-loser binary and toward a more functional question: what interest, subject matter, or amount requires protection at this stage of the arbitral lifecycle? The statute does not change, but the objective of protection changes. Before arbitration, preserve the subject matter. During arbitration, they fill gaps where the tribunal cannot act. After the award, the primary objective is to protect the ’s ability to enforce. Yet, in , an may also need protection—for instance, to prevent irreparable harm while its challenge is pending, or to secure assets that might otherwise be dissipated in a way that frustrates any eventual relief.
The judgment does not elaborate on what those might be, leaving that to the trial courts. But it makes clear that the default position is not in favour of the . The award itself creates a against granting interim relief to the party that lost. Only where the can demonstrate a for protection—one that outweighs the finality of the award and the risk of abuse—should the court exercise its discretion.
Implications for Practice
For arbitration practitioners, Home Care provides a clear roadmap. First, do not assume that a losing client has no remedy under Section 9. The application will be maintainable. Second, prepare for a significantly heavier burden. The court will not treat the application as routine. The must articulate a specific, that cannot be remedied by damages or by the eventual outcome of the proceedings. Third, the judgment reinforces the importance of the challenge itself: the strength of that challenge will be a critical factor in the Section 9 analysis. A patently weak challenge will almost certainly preclude any interim relief.
On the other side, successful award-holders can take comfort that the judgment does not dilute their position. The remains entitled to seek Section 9 relief on the standard footing—to preserve the fruits of the award. The Court’s emphasis on heightened scrutiny applies only to the . Award-holders do not need to meet that higher bar.
Conclusion
Home Care Retail Marts v. Haresh N. Sanghavi is a carefully calibrated decision. It respects the legislative choice to keep Section 9 open to “a party” without artificial restrictions, while simultaneously guarding against abuse by insisting on rigorous judicial discretion. The judgment does not undermine the finality of arbitral awards; it simply recognises that finality and interim protection are not always in conflict. In the post-award stage, the court must balance finality with fairness, enforcement with protection, and with . That balance, as the Supreme Court has now made clear, cannot be achieved by a simplistic winner-loser classification. The real question is whether the circumstances justify the exceptional exercise of the court’s power—and that question must be answered on the facts of each case, not on the outcome of the arbitration alone.
