Introduction
An arbitral award does not always end a dispute in practical terms. Apart from challenging the award itself under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi [2026 SCC Online SC 670; 2026 INSC 415], the Supreme Court has held that a party that has lost in arbitration may seek interim protections under Section 9 of the Act.
The question before the Court
The Supreme Court was required to determine whether, at the post-award stage, the losing party in the arbitration remains entitled to seek interim protection under Section 9 of the Act.
Conflicting jurisprudence
Previously, the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka had held that a party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings cannot maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Act. The Bombay High Court reasoned that since under Section 34 of the Act, the Court may either set aside or uphold the award but not reverse the findings of the tribunal, an unsuccessful party is not entitled to any “fruits of arbitral award” and therefore cannot seek interim relief under Section 9.
Conversely, the High Courts of Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana had held that interim measures are available to all parties who demonstrate a bona fide apprehension of injury or dissipation of the subject matter pending Section 34 proceedings. Accordingly, they held that a party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings can maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Act.
After considering the conflicting jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has now held that Section 9 remains available to an unsuccessful party. In doing so, the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka have been struck down as not good law.
The specific language of Section 9
The Court began with the language of the statute. Section 9 of the Act permits a party to seek interim measures of protection “before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced”. The Court noted that in the post-award stage contemplated under Section 9, read with the definition of ‘party’, there is no distinction drawn between a successful and an unsuccessful party. Therefore, the availability of post-award relief under Section 9 is not confined solely to award-winners. In fact, the statute specifically contemplates an additional right upon parties to seek interim measures after the arbitral award has been rendered but prior to its enforcement.
The interplay between Section 34, Section 36 and Section 9
The Court explained that Sections 9, 34 and 36 of the Act serve different purposes and operate in “distinct spheres”. Section 34 tests the validity of the award; Section 36 concerns its enforcement and any stay; Section 9 exists to preserve the subject matter or amount in dispute while these questions are decided. The fact that a party can challenge an award, or seek a stay of its enforcement, does not ensure protection of the subject matter or the amount in dispute. This can have real consequences – disputed assets may be transferred or dissipated during the pendency of the challenge.
Impact of the decision in Gayatri Balasamy
The Court noted that the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka were based on the fundamental premise that under Section 34 of the Act, the Court may either dismiss the challenge to the arbitral award or set the award aside. Therefore, since an unsuccessful party is not entitled to any “fruits of arbitral award”, it cannot seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Act. However, the Court further noted that the said premise is now untenable since the decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 986] has settled the position that Courts have the power to modify an award where the award is severable. Therefore, since the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 34, can modify an award, a party whose claim was rejected in arbitration cannot be left remediless during the pendency of the Section 34 proceedings. Interim protections maybe necessary for such a party where, for instance, assets may be dissipated, an award is prima facie tainted by fraud, or existing protection such as an order restraining invocation of a bank guarantee may lapse before the challenge is decided.
A remedy, not an automatic entitlement
It is important to note that the judgment does not give unsuccessful parties an automatic right to interim relief merely because they have challenged the award under Section 34. The usual requirements – prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm continue to apply. The Court has, in fact, clarified that the threshold for grant of interim relief will be higher in the case of an unsuccessful party in arbitration. Such relief is contemplated only in “rare and compelling cases” where it is necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice or preserve the effectiveness of the challenge.
Practical significance
The decision provides an important safeguard for parties challenging an adverse arbitral award. An unsuccessful party may still seek protection under Section 9 of the Act where there is genuine risk of irreversible prejudice, before its Section 34 challenge is decided. In doing so, the Court has upheld the intent of the statute as is clear from the language of the statute itself, while ensuring that the finality of arbitration is not diluted.
However, at a practical level, parties that have awards in their favour, may have to battle not only challenges to the award under Section 34 of the Act, but also proceedings under Section 9 of the Act that could run in parallel. The clarification that an unsuccessful party to an arbitration will have to meet a higher threshold when seeking interim relief is significant toavoid multiple parallel proceedings that permit a losing party to delay enforcement of an arbitral award.
Link to Judgment: Click here
