ABSTRACT
Interim measures are critical to preserve the efficacy of arbitration. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides two distinct statutory mechanisms for such relief: Section 9, which vests power in courts, and Section 17, which vests power in arbitral tribunals. The 2015 Amendment sought to minimize judicial intervention and promote party autonomy by making tribunals the primary forum for interim relief once constituted. However, courts continue to play an important role for urgent, pre-constitution, third-party, and post-award relief.
This article examines the scope, procedure, and practical utility of Section 9 and Section 17. It analyzes their role in securing assets, preserving evidence, and maintaining the status quo, with emphasis on enforcement mechanisms and post-award applications. The article further discusses key judicial pronouncements and legislative intent, and concludes that both provisions operate as complementary tools rather than alternatives.
INTRODUCTION
Arbitration is chosen for its speed, confidentiality, and finality. But arbitration itself is not instantaneous. During the period from invocation to enforcement, the subject matter may be dissipated.
To prevent this, the Act provides interim measures. The Act bifurcates this power:
1. Section 9 – Courts
2. Section 17 – Arbitral Tribunals
The 2015 Amendment made the tribunal the primary forum once constituted. This paper explains both provisions, their enforcement regime, and post-award role.
SECTION 9: INTERIM MEASURES BY COURTS
Scope
Court may order: appointment of guardian, preservation of goods, securing amount, interim injunction, appointment of receiver, or any just and convenient protection.
Stages of Invocation
1. Before commencement of arbitration
2. During arbitration – only if Section 17 remedy is inefficacious u/s 9(3) proviso
3. After award but before enforcement u/s 9(2)
Territorial Reach
Post-2015, Indian courts can grant relief even in foreign-seated arbitrations if assets/evidence are in India.
Nature of Power
Similar to Order 38 and 39 CPC. Can bind third parties like banks and registrars. Has contempt power.
Key Cases
Fidelity Industries Ltd v. Dahej SEZ Ltd, (2017) 16 SCC 710.
Panasonic Life Solutions India v. FHP India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1542
SECTION 17: INTERIM MEASURES BY ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS*
Scope
Applies only after tribunal is constituted. Tribunal may order status quo, security for costs, preservation of evidence/property.
Binding Nature
Post-2015 Amendment, Section 17(2): Orders are enforceable under CPC as if they were court orders.
Limitations
1. No jurisdiction over third parties – _Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan, (2017) 16 SCC 119_
2. No power before constitution
3. No power post-award – tribunal becomes functus officio
Emergency Arbitrator
Institutional rules provide for EA. _Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings v. Future Retail Ltd, (2021) 18 SCC 311_ recognized enforceability.
ENFORCEMENT REGIME
Section 9 Order
Directly executable as court order. Contempt available.
Section 17 Order
Must file execution petition. Court verifies validity then executes under CPC. No direct contempt power with tribunal.
POST-AWARD RELIEF
Section 17 ends with award. Section 9(2) allows interim measures after award but before enforcement u/s 36.
Used for: anti-dissipation of assets, security for stay during Section 34 challenge. _BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd, (2018) 6 SCC 287_
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Based on Law Commission 246th Report. Goal: minimum judicial intervention. Section 9(3) discourages forum shopping. Courts ask: “Why can’t tribunal do this?”
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE
Section 9 Petition: Show urgency, irreparable harm, and why Section 17 is inefficacious.
Section 17 Application: File before tribunal. Show prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury.
FAQs
Q1. Can court refuse Section 9 if tribunal exists?
Yes, unless applicant proves Section 17 remedy is not efficacious.
Q2. Are Section 17 orders appealable?
No. Challenge only in final award u/s 34.
Q3. Does Section 17 apply to foreign-seated arbitration?*
No. Only Section 9 available for assets in India.
Q4. Violation of Section 17 order?
File execution u/s 17(2) + CPC. Claim damages in final award.
Q5. Time limit for Section 9 post-award?
Before enforcement u/s 36. Usually within 3 months challenge period.
CONCLUSION
Section 17 is the primary forum for interim relief once the tribunal is constituted and reflects the pro-arbitration intent of the 2015 amendments. Section 9 complements it by providing urgent, pre-arbitration, third-party, and post-award relief that tribunals cannot grant.
Both provisions are complementary, not conflicting. Section 17 ensures autonomy and efficiency during arbitration, while Section 9 acts as a judicial backstop when speed or coercive power is needed. Together, they ensure that arbitration in India remains effective and capable of delivering timely justice.
REFERENCES
1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
2. Law Commission of India, 246th Report, 2014
3. _Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium_, (2012) 9 SCC 552
4. _Fidelity Industries Ltd v. Dahej SEZ Ltd_, (2017) 16 SCC 710
5. _Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan_, (2017) 16 SCC 119
6. _BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd_, (2018) 6 SCC 287
7. _Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd_, (2021) 18 SCC 311
8. _Panasonic Life Solutions Indõia Pvt Ltd v. FHP India Pvt Ltd_, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1542
9. O.P. Malhotra, _Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation_, 3rd Edn
10. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 7th Edn
Author: Zunaira Parveen
3rd Year Law student | BA LLB (Hons)| Passionate about law, justice, and social impact | Eager to learn, grow, and connect with like-minded professionals