Interim Relief Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
An advocate seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must establish that the applicant holds a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favours granting the relief, and that irreparable injury would result if the measure is refused. The provision empowers the court to pass orders for securing the amount in dispute, preserving property, or granting injunctions before or during arbitral proceedings, or even after the award but before enforcement.
Courts approach a Section 9 application by weighing the settled principles that govern temporary injunctions, while remaining conscious that the main dispute is destined for arbitration. The listed judgments show that the court's power is not ousted merely because the tribunal has been constituted, though the applicant must demonstrate why the court's intervention remains necessary. In cases such as Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & ANR.C (india) Ltd. v. Hscc (india) Ltd, the court examined the nature of the relief and the contractual matrix before deciding the application.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
1994INSC283Supreme Court · 1994cited 2,240 times
The Supreme Court held that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits. While the government has freedom of contract, decisions must be free from arbitrariness, bias…
- 2
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others
2017 INSC 785Supreme Court · 2017cited 2,090 times
By a majority of 3:2, the practice of talaq-e-biddat is set aside. Per Nariman J.: Triple talaq is not an essential religious practice under Art. 25; the 1937 Act, as a pre-constitutional law recognising and enforcing…
- 3
M/S. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.
2001 INSC 255Supreme Court · 2001cited 1,080 times
A foreign award given after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the arbitration proceedings commenced prior to the Act, is enforceable under the Act. The Act, being a continuation of…
- 4
Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) Represented through Legal Representatives v. the State of Karnataka & Ors.
2018 INSC 969Supreme Court · 2018cited 972 times
Per Lokur J (majority, for himself and Nazeer J): The significant date is the date of the order of acquittal, not the date of the alleged offence; the victim's cause of action arises only on acquittal; an acquittal…
- 5
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota v. M/S. Shukla & Brothers
2010 INSC 209Supreme Court · 2010cited 887 times
Recording of reasons is an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and constitutes an unqualified, mandatory obligation of courts — not merely a qualified duty. Courts must record reasons both at admission stage…
- 6
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
2014 INSC 21Supreme Court · 2014cited 802 times
Power u/s 319(1) CrPC is exercisable from the stage of filing of the charge-sheet up to pronouncement of judgment; 'trial' commences only on framing of charges; 'evidence' for this purpose is confined to material…
- 7
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
1994INSC112Supreme Court · 1994cited 765 times
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the TADA Acts and the U.P. Amendment Act, finding them to be within Parliament's legislative competence. While upholding most provisions, the Court read into…
- 8
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd
2003INSC241Supreme Court · 2003cited 750 times
The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34 if it is patently illegal, in contravention of substantive law, or the terms of the contract. The phrase 'Public Policy of India' should…
- 9
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
2014 INSC 809Supreme Court · 2014cited 731 times
Appeal allowed. An arbitral award governed by Part I can be set aside only on the grounds in s. 34(2) and (3); the grounds in s. 34(2)(a) do not go to the merits. "Public policy of India" covers four heads —…
- 10
M/S Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
2021 INSC 266Supreme Court · 2021cited 694 times
1. The Joint Commissioner acted as a delegate of the Commissioner under s. 5(3); an appeal under s. 107(1) was not available against his order; the writ petition under Art. 226 was maintainable and was the only remedy…
- 11
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & ANR.C (india) Ltd. v. Hscc (india) Ltd
2019 INSC 1285Supreme Court · 2019cited 679 times
Application allowed. (1) Perkins Eastman, the lead member of the consortium, having its registered office in New York satisfies s. 2(1)(f); the arbitration is an International Commercial Arbitration and the application…
- 12
Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors.
2019 INSC 996Supreme Court · 2019cited 673 times
Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes solatium and interest from compensation for compulsory acquisition. The 1997 Amendment Act, whose object was solely to speed…
Frequently asked questions
Can a party apply under Section 9 before invoking the arbitration clause?
Yes. Section 9 expressly permits a party to apply for interim measures before arbitral proceedings commence. The court will examine whether the applicant has taken effective steps to commence arbitration within the period prescribed, but the availability of pre-arbitration relief is well recognised.
What standard does the court apply when deciding whether to restrain encashment of a bank guarantee in a Section 9 petition?
The court applies the settled principles for injunctions, including the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. For bank guarantees, the court also considers whether the invocation is fraudulent or would cause special equity, as the guarantee is ordinarily an independent contract.
Does the court retain power to grant interim relief after the arbitral tribunal is constituted?
The court retains jurisdiction under Section 9 even after the tribunal is constituted. However, once the tribunal is in place, the court generally expects the party to approach the tribunal first and will grant relief under Section 9 only if it is satisfied that the remedy under Section 17 is not efficacious.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on commercial, arbitration & insolvency
- Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act
- Setting Aside an Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
- Injunction Against Invocation of a Bank Guarantee
- Admission of a Section 7 IBC Application by a Financial Creditor
- Section 9 IBC — Operational Creditor and Pre-Existing Dispute
- Oppression and Mismanagement under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act 2013
- Consumer Complaint Against Builder for Delayed Possession