SC: Unsuccessful Party in Arbitration Can Invoke Section 9 for Post-Award Interim Relief

Summary

[1]Resolving a significant conflict among various High Courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an unsuccessful party in arbitration can maintain a petition for post-award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court clarified that the statutory language does not distinguish between a winning and losing party, though the threshold for granting such relief to an unsuccessful party remains high.

Facts

• High Courts across the country were divided on this issue: Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts held that an unsuccessful party could not seek post-award Section 9 relief, reasoning it was meant only to protect the “fruits of the award” for the winner.
• Conversely, Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts held that an unsuccessful party could seek such relief.
• The appellants argued that since Section 34 allows courts to set aside or modify an award, the underlying contractual rights could revive, and leaving the losing party without interim protection during the challenge would render them remediless.
• The respondents argued that post-award, only the successful party has a prima facie entitlement to interim measures, as an unsuccessful party has no “fruits of the award” to preserve.

Issues

• Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the post-award stage by a party that has lost in the arbitral proceedings is maintainable in law.

Judgement

• Literal Interpretation of “A Party”: Section 9 uses the term “a party,” defined simply as a party to the arbitration agreement. The Court held that this term cannot be contextually modulated or varied based on the outcome of the arbitration to mean only the “successful party”.
• Protection during Section 34 challenges: The assumption that a court can only uphold or set aside an award is untenable, as courts possess the power to modify awards or sever invalid portions. If an unsuccessful party is denied Section 9 relief, assets could dissipate during a Section 34 challenge, rendering any final success illusory.
• Higher Threshold for Relief: While recognizing the right to invoke Section 9, the Court cautioned that the threshold for granting interim relief (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm) will be significantly higher for an unsuccessful party.

Analysis

This decision brings much-needed uniformity to arbitration jurisprudence in India. By recognizing that Section 34 proceedings can fundamentally alter the final outcome, the Court ensures that all parties have a mechanism to preserve the subject matter of the dispute. However, the caveat of a “higher threshold” ensures this right cannot be used frivolously to stall the successful party.

[1] BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Home Care Retail Marts Pvt Ltd v. Haresh N Sangavi

SLP(C) No. 29972/2015 

Judgment Dated: April 24, 2026