The Supreme Court of India has ruled that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, is maintainable in law to file a petition for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the post-award stage. A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan resolved a significant conflict among various High Courts, holding that the term ‘a party’ cannot be contextually modulated based on the outcome of the arbitral proceedings.
Background and Substantial Question of Law
The appeals arose from conflicting views taken by different High Courts across the country. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was: “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 and has no enforceable award in its favour, is maintainable in law?”
The High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka had previously held that an unsuccessful party cannot maintain such a petition. Conversely, the High Courts of Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana had taken the view that such petitions are maintainable.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellants: Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. K.M. Nataraj and Senior Counsel Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari argued that if an award is set aside under Section 34, the underlying contract and rights are revived. They contended that an interpretation barring an unsuccessful party from Section 9 relief would leave them “entirely remediless.” They further emphasized that:
- Section 43(4) of the Act preserves the right to re-initiate arbitration.
- The 2019 Amendment clarified that arbitral tribunals cease to have jurisdiction post-award.
- Following the decision in Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, awards can now be modified, vitiating the premise that Courts only uphold or set aside awards.
For the Respondents: Senior Counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy argued that once an award is rendered, claims are conclusively adjudicated. She contended that at the post-award stage, Section 9 is confined to securing the “fruits of the award.” Her arguments included:
- An unsuccessful party has “no fruits of award to preserve.”
- The only remedy for a losing party is challenging the award under Section 34 and seeking a stay under Section 36(2).
- Allowing Section 9 relief to unsuccessful parties would “undermine the discipline of the Act” and invite a “multiplicity of proceedings.”
The Court’s Analysis
Literal Interpretation of ‘A Party’ The Court noted that Section 9 uses the expression ‘a party’, defined in Section 2(h) simply as ‘a party to an arbitration agreement’. The Court observed:
“Neither Section 2(h) nor Section 9 of the Act draws any distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party in arbitration proceedings.”
The Court rejected the idea of contextual modulation, stating that assigning a different meaning to ‘a party’ post-award would result in an “anomalous situation” and would amount to “judicial amendment of the statute.”
Departure from UNCITRAL Model Law The Court highlighted that while the Indian Act is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, the Indian Parliament consciously departed from Article 9 of the Model Law by adding the “post-award” stage. The Court noted:
“This departure… demonstrates that the legislature deliberately expanded the scope of Section 9 of the Act. Significantly, while doing so, it did not impose any restriction on the category of parties entitled to seek such relief.”
Distinct Spheres of Sections 9, 34, and 36 The Court clarified that Section 34 and 36 provide remedies against an award, whereas Section 9 ensures protection of the subject matter. Denying Section 9 relief would leave a party remediless even if an award is stayed and potentially liable to be set aside.
Impact of Gayatri Balasamy The Court observed that the premise of earlier restrictive judgments—that Courts can only uphold or set aside awards—is no longer tenable following Gayatri Balasamy (supra), which settled that Courts can modify awards in specific circumstances.
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the restrictive views of the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts “do not lay down good law.” It affirmed the position taken by the Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts.
The Court concluded:
“Consequently, this Court holds that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party in arbitration, may invoke Section 9 of the Act at the post-award stage.”
However, the Court added a note of caution, stating that while the right exists, the threshold for granting relief to an unsuccessful party will be higher. Courts are advised to exercise “care, caution and circumspection” when dealing with such applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi
Case No.: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 29972/2015
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
Date: April 24, 2026
