1. The power of courts under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant interim relief in arbitration matters is subject to limitations. Courts can only grant interim relief to the same extent as in normal court proceedings and in a manner that does not interfere with the powers of arbitral tribunals. 2. Parties can apply for interim relief under Section 9 even before arbitral proceedings have formally commenced. However, courts must exercise caution in granting such relief so as not to frustrate the arbitration process. 3. Where parties have agreed on the place of arbitration in their contract, only courts in that jurisdiction have authority to entertain applications related to the arbitration agreement, including requests for interim

1. 1
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1. Power u/s 9 is not unbridled. It is subject to certain limitations and
restrictions, such as, firstly, it can be exercised by the Court to the same
extent and in the same manner as it could for the purpose of in relation to
any proceeding before it and, secondly, the exercise of the power to make
interim arrangements should not militate against any power which might be
vested in an Arbitral Tribunal. The interim measures which a Court may be
requested by a party to take are detailed in sub­clauses (a) to (e) of clause
(ii) of Section 9. Similar measures were given in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the
Second Schedule of the repealed Act. The improvement now made is that an
omnibus provision in the shape of sub­clause (e) has now been added
providing that an application may be made to the Court for such other
interim measures of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and
convenient. The power conferred u/s 9 of the Act is to be exercised by the
Court only in sparing circumstances. A party to the arbitration proceeding
cannot be allowed to challenge normal and routine orders passed by an
Arbitral Tribunal. The interim directions can be issued u/s 9 only for the
purpose of arbitration proceeding and with a view to protect the interest of
the parties which otherwise cannot be protected or safeguarded by the
Arbitral Tribunal. The power contemplated u/s 9 is not intended to frustrate
the arbitration proceeding. Power to pass orders with respect to interim
measures cannot be exercised by a Court if it would prejudice the powers
vested in the Arbitrator and renders him incapable to resolve the dispute
between the parties. If a long rope is given to the parties to approach the
Court u/s 9 of the Act in that event proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal
will be throttled and it would become difficult for the Arbitral Tribunal to
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. 2
proceed further in the matter. Therefore, to allow the jurisdiction u/s 9 to be
invoked for interim direction, one has to be cautious and circumspect. If the
application of the nature, as has been filed in the present case before the
District Judge, is allowed to be entertained, it will open up the flood­gates of
litigation and the Court will be mulcted with many number of applications of
this nature leaving the Arbitrator helpless. If such type of applications are
permitted to be filed, the very purpose of the Act will itself be frustrated and
rendered nugatory. Thus even if the application purported to have been made
u/s 34 of the Act before the Court is treated to be an independent application
u/s 9 of the Act, it would, for the above reasons, be untenable. The
intendment of the new Act is to minimise the scope for intervention of Courts
in arbitration matters. The Arbitral Tribunal has been given a free hand to
deal with the disputes between the parties and to arrive at its resolution. A
finality has been attached to an Arbitral award u/s 35 of the Act and the law
has turned a full circle as an award by itself has become enforceable as a
decree of a Court. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the
Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the
facts. On the other hand, u/s 34 or u/s 9 of the Act, when a Court is called
upon to decide the objection raised by a party against an Arbitral award or to
make interim measures of protection, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited
as expressly indicated in the said provisions. It has no jurisdiction to sit in
appeal and examine the correctness of the award on merits with reference to
materials produced before the Arbitral Tribunal or to issue an order of
injunction, which may result in constructing the proceedings before the
Arbitral Tribunal. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the views of the
Arbitrator by re­examining and re­assessing the materials, in exercise of its
power u/s 34 of the Act and similarly under the garb of interim measures of
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. 3
protection it cannot put impediments in the progress of the Arbitral
proceeding.
1.1. Para Nos. 11 to 14 of Deepak Mitra v/s District Judge, Allahabad,
reported in AIR 2000 Allahabad 9.
2. Whether an application seeking interim order before commencement
of proceeding is maintainable?­ Held Yes. ­ An application for Interim
measures can be made at pre­reference stage.
2.1. Kohli Brothers v/s M/s. Atlantis Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR
2008 Allahabad 43. Shri Bal Kishan Agrawal Glass Industries Limited,
Dholpura v/s Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 Allahabad 361. Bimal
Ghosh and Ors. v/s Smt. Kalpana Majumdar, AIR 2007 Culcutta 293 (DB).
Himcon Projects Pvt. Ltd. v/s LMZ Energy (India) Ltd., AIR 2012
Chhattisgarh 28 (DB). Globe Co­generation Power Ltd. v/s Sri Hiranyakeshi
Sahakari Sakkere Karkhane Niyamit, Sankeshwar, Karnataka, reported in AIR
2005 Karnataka 94 (DB).
3. What could be the amount of Court Fees valuation for purpose of
jurisdiction with respect to an application preferred u/s 9 of the Act?
3.1. The proper valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction under u/s 9 of
the Act should be the subject matter of the amount likely to be affected.­
M/s. Modern Metal Industries v/s Smt. Shanti Parolia, reported in AIR 2004
Allahabad 227.
4. Parties agreed for final settlement of disputes under Rules of
Conciliation and Arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce. They
also agreed to construe and interpolate contract in accordance with
substantive laws of State of New Jersey and applicable laws of U. S. A. They
have nowhere agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts in India. Whether
jurisdiction of Indian Courts excluded even if part of cause of action arose
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. 4
within their jurisdiction? ­ Held­ Yes.
4.1. Progressive Construction Ltd. v/s The Louis Berger Group Inc., AIR
2012 Andhra Pradesh 38 (DB). Videocon Industries Ltd. v/s Union of India,
reported in AIR 2011 SC 2040.
5. Parties by agreement deciding that place of arbitration would be
State of Orissa – Whether under this circumstances, only Courts in State of
Orissa would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain arbitration agreement
including application for interim relief u/s 9 of Act, irrespective of whether
cause of action had arisen wholly or in part?­ Held­ Yes.
5.1. When the parties in Art. 10 of the agreement had agreed to the place
of arbitration as State of Orissa then considering the definition of "Court" as
defined in S. 2(1)(e) of the Act, the Courts in the State of Orissa, alone will
have the jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject­matter of
arbitration, but not the Courts in Andhra Pradesh irrespective of whether
cause of action has arisen wholly or in part. The party cannot be permitted to
invoke the theory of cause of action by application of the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Court at
Hyderabad, for entertaining application under S. 9 of the Act.
5.2. As the parties in Art. 10 of the agreement, have agreed to the place
of arbitration as State of Orissa, only the Courts in the State of Orissa, as
defined in S. 2(1)(e) of the Act, will have jurisdiction to entertain all
applications with respect to the arbitration agreement, including application
under S. 9 of the Act, and if the Courts in Andhra Pradesh entertain the
application under S. 9 of the Act, then all subsequent application arising out
of the arbitration agreement shall have to be made in the Courts in Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, which is not the intendment of the parties under Art.
10 of the agreement.
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. 5
5.3. If the application under S. 9 of the Act is allowed to be adjudicated
by the Court at Hyderabad, then having regard to the provisions of S. 42 of
the Act and the bar contained therein, all the subsequent arbitral proceedings
shall be made in that Court alone. The phrase employed in S. 42 of the Act,
namely "with respect to an arbitration agreement," has wide meaning and it
includes the proceedings under S. 9 of the Act. In view of the fact that the
agreement contains a clause in Art. 10, whereunder the parties have agreed
to "the place of arbitration shall be in the State of Orissa," if the application is
entertained by the Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, then it would have
an impact on the subsequent arbitral proceedings, for all the subsequent
applications, will have to be filed in the Courts in the State of Andhra
Pradesh, i.e. the Civil Court at Hyderabad, upon which, the parties have not
conferred any jurisdiction. M/s. Jyothi Turbo Power Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s
M/s. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd., reported in
2011 Andhra Pradesh 111 (DB).
5.4. Further held in para No.36 that when Court coming to conclusion
that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain application, Court need not
go into merits of case.
6. An application for interim injunction against invocation of bank
guarantee on allegation of fraud is enough to pass an order of injunction?­
For getting stay against the invocation of bank guarantee, Court has to record
finding that applicant would suffer irreparable injury and if, there is no
possibility of respondents suffering any irreparable injury, order restraining
appellant from invoking bank guarantee cannot be passed.
6.1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v/s M/s. Jagson Intl. Ltd., AIR
2005 Bombay 335. Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v/s Coal Tar Refining
Company, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2798. M/s. Hindustan Construction Co.
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. 6
Ltd. v/s M/s. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., AIR 2006 Delhi 169. M/s. Vinitec
Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd., AIR 2005 Delhi 314.
Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane v/s National Heavy Engg.
Coop. Ltd., reported in AIR 2007 SC 2716.
7. Is it necessary for the party seeking interim measure from the Court
u/s 9(ii)(d) for security of the amount in dispute in the arbitration by the
Court during the arbitral proceedings to satisfy the conditions of attachment
before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C.?­ Held­ No. Power of Court to
pass interim protection order cannot be restricted by importing provisions of
O.38, R.5 of Civil P.C. in Section 9 of the Act.
7.1. National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v/s Sentrans Industries
Ltd., AIR 2004 Bombay 136 (DB).
8. Whether on the basis of the averments made in the application u/s 9
of the Act, Court can pass the interim order, which is an order in the nature
of attachment before judgment?­ Held­ No. ­ Applicant should show, prima
facie, that his claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the Court that the
defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property,
with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that
may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5
CPC. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of
attachment before judgment. Since, said principles squarely apply to the
proceedings under Section 9(ii) of the Act, Court before passing any direction
in the nature of attachment before award should follow those principles.
8.1. Rashmi Cement Ltd. v/s Trafigura Beheer B. v/s, reported in AIR
2011 Culcutta 37 (DB). Brand Value Communications Ltd. v/s Eskay Video
Private Ltd., reported in AIR 2010 Culcutta 166 (DB). M/s. Global Company
v/s M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., AIR 1998 Delhi 397.
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. 7
9. Whether an application u/s 9 of the Act can be dismissed for want of
original agreement as required u/s 8? ­ Held – No. ­ Provisions of Section 8
of the Act operate in different field and cannot be invoked in a proceeding
u/s 9 of Act.
9.1. M/s. Mercury Exports v/s CLC Tanner's Association, reported in AIR
2011 Culcutta 117 (DB).
10. Whether bar imposed u/s 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932) for filing
a suit, affect maintainability of application u/s 9 of the Act?­ Held – No.
10.1. Firm Ashok Traders v/s Gurumukh Das Saluja, reported in AIR 2004
SC 1433.
11. Exclusive jurisdiction and Cause of action ­ Hire and purchase
agreement executed at place 'C' but place 'B' is wrongly mentioned. All
installments paid at place 'C', seizures of vehicle giving rise to disputes and
differences also taking place at place 'C' and no part of cause of action arises
at place 'B', under this circumstances Courts at place 'B' cannot be said to
have exclusive jurisdiction.
11.1. Tata Finance Limited , Appellant v/s Pragati Paribahan, reported in
AIR 2000 Culcutta 241 (DB). Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
v/s Jivrajbhai Khumabhai Rabari, passed in F.A. 5443 to 5460 and 5462 to
5469 of 2007, dated 15/07/2011 by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
12. Whether an application preferred u/s 9 of the Act can be made in
relation to foreign Arbitration?­ Held­ Yes.­ Applicability of Part 1 of the Act is
not restricted by S. 2(2) to arbitration/international commercial arbitration
that takes place in India. Further held that omission by legislature to provide
that Part 1 will not apply to international commercial arbitration taking place
outside India, indicates that Part 1 also applies to arbitrations outside India.­
Finally held that an application for interim measures can be made in
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. 8
arbitration proceedings taking place in foreign country.
12.1. Bhatia International , Appellant v/s Bulk Trading S. A., AIR 2002 SC
1432 (FB). Olex Focas Pty. Ltd. v/s Skodaexport Co. Ltd., reported in AIR
2000 Delhi 161.
13. Whether the powers u/s 9 available to the Court and the powers u/s
17 available to the Arbitral Tribunal to make interim measures are
independent?­ Held­ Yes ­ There may be some degree of overlap between the
two provisions but the powers u/s 9 are much wider inasmuch as they extend
to the period pre and post the award as well as with regard to the subject­
matter and nature of the orders. The pendency of an application u/s 17,
therefore, does not denude the Court of its powers to make an order for
interim measures under Section 9 of the said Act.
13.1. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) v/s M/s. China Coal
Construction Group Corpn, AIR 2006 Delhi 134.
14. Application for production of documents under Rule 14 of Order XI
of CPC is maintainability u/s 9 of the Act?­ Held­ No.­ Not maintainable in
view of provisions of Section 9 of Act, which only deals with interim measure
by Court.
14.1. Narain Sahai Aggarwal v/s Smt. Santosh Rani, reported in AIR 1998
Delhi 144.
15. Whether proceeding u/s 9 of the Act is maintainable only between
'parties' to arbitration agreement? Held­ Yes – Facts of the case were, opposite
party No.1 being financed by applicant purchased equipment and entered
into arbitration agreement with opposite party No.2 for execution of project ­
Dispute arose between opposite parties No.1 and 2 referred to arbitrator ­
Application u/s 9 of the Act filed by opposite party No.1 ­ Applicant financier
cannot be said to party to arbitration agreement between opposite parties ­
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. 9
Cannot seek impleadment or protection of his right under proceedings u/s 9
of the Act.
15.1. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v/s Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd.,
reported in AIR 2009 Gauhati 110. Shoney Sanil v/s M/s. Coastal
Foundations (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 2006 Kerala 2006. Union of India v/s
M/s. Saravana Constructions Private Limited, reported in AIR 2010 Madras
6.
16. Whether during the pendency of an application u/s 9 of Act another
application filed u/O.39 of CPC seeking interim injunction can be
entertained?­ Held ­ Not tenable ­ Since an application u/s 9 of the Act itself
is by way of an interim measure.
16.1. M/s. Nikitha Build­Tech (P) Ltd., Bangalore v/s M/s. Natural Textiles
Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, AIR 2010 Karnataka 170 (DB).
17. Whether an application u/s of the Act for the appointment of
Receiver is filed after passing of award is permissible – Held­ Yes ­ But,
discretion u/s 9 of the Act cannot be invoked in case where award is ripe for
execution ­ Award can straightway be executed in accordance with S.36 of
Act.
17.1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. v/s Nazeer. M. Muhammedkutty, AIR 2011
Kerala 147 (DB).
18. M. P. Madhyasthan Adhikaran Adhiniyam (29 of 1983), S.2(1) and
20 – Whether a contract for construction of water treatment plant is 'Works
Contract' within S. 2(1) of 1983 Act?­ Held­ Yes­ Therefore, Civil Court's
jurisdiction to entertain it u/s 9 of the Act is barred.
18.1. Mrs. Kamini Malhotra v/s State of M.P., AIR 2003 M.P. 13.
18.2. But in the case of M. P. Rural Road Development Authority v/s M/s.
L. G. Chaudhary Engineers, reported in AIR 2012 SC1228 has referred this
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. 10
issue to Larger Bench.
19. Facts of the case were:­ The appellant filed an application under
Section 9 of the Act contending that under Hire Purchase Agreement, the
applicant had let on hire various machineries to respondent and he had to
pay the hire charges for a period of 36 months. However, the respondent had
failed to pay the hire charges and additional finance charges. It was the
further case of the applicant that in the Hire Purchase Agreement, necessary
arbitration clause is incorporated and as such, it is entitled to invoke the said
clause seeking direction, directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantee
for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the
machinery and handover the same to the applicant. The respondent
contended that the amount was originally borrowed from one Harita Finance
Limited, under various Hire Purchase Agreements and though the rights
accrued in the said agreements were later on assigned to the applicant
Company, the applicant cannot maintain the said applications, more
particularly due to the fact that the respondent company has become a sick
industry within the meaning of "Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1985') and it had
submitted an application before the Board for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction (hereinafter called as 'BIFR') to frame a rehabilitation scheme
and a draft scheme was already published on 30­1­2003 and by virtue of the
specific bar under Section 22(1) of the Act, there cannot be any distress
proceedings and no legal proceedings can be maintained against the
respondent company which has been declared as a sick industry.
19.1. Hon'ble Division Bench held that:­ the protection is available therein
is only as against the Company and any of its properties, whereas the present
application is filed only to repossess the machineries which are hired to the
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

11. 11
respondent company, the ownership of which, has not been transferred to it.
It is pertinent to note that until the payment of all the instalments are made
by the hirer, the ownership of the hired machinery would still remain with
the appellant company and hence the present proceedings do not fall within
the scope of Section 22(1) of the Act.
19.2. M/s. TVS Investments Ltd. , Appellant v/s M/s. Essorpee Mills Ltd.,
reported in AIR 2004 Madras 175 (DB).
20. Whether Court can pass an order under Rule 10 of Order VII of
CPC?­ Held­ No.­ In Arbitration Act, no procedure has been prescribed for
return of application nor is CPC applicable in a strict sense to arbitration
proceeding. Therefore, Court is of view that writ application is maintainable
against impugned order.
20.1. M/s. D. T. M. Construction (Indian) Ltd. v/s Capt. P. K. Srivastava,
reported in AIR 2011 Orissa 61.
21. Whether an application u/s 9 can be allowed when there is reason to
believe that case of the applicant can be compensated in terms of money for
the injury suffered by him?­ Held­ No.
21.1. Executive Engineer v/s Bichitrananda Behera, reported in AIR 2008
Orissa 44. Kiran Mohanty v/s M/s. Woodburn Developers and Builders (P)
Ltd., reported in AIR 2006 Orissa 31.
22. Whether powers of Court u/s 9 of the Act is independent of Specific
Relief Act or not?­ Held­ Exercise of power u/s 9 of the Act must be based on
well recognized principles governing grant of interim injunctions and other
orders of interim protection or appointment of a Receiver and restrictions
placed by Specific Relief Act can control exercise of power u/s 9 of the Act.
22.1. M/s. Arvind Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. Kalinga Mining
Corporation, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2144. Adhunik Steels Ltd. v/s Orissa
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

12. 12
Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2007 SC 2563.
Judgments on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.