Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals by Unsuccessful Party in Arbitration Seeking Interim Relief Under Section 9. The Court holds that a party whose claim has been rejected in arbitration has no enforceable award and cannot invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage to seek interim measures.

Civil appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions challenging orders of the Bombay High Court dismissing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which upheld the rejection of Section 9 petitions filed by the unsuccessful party in arbitration.

The appellant, Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd., sought interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage to protect its interests pending challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34.

The appellant was unsuccessful in the arbitral proceedings and filed a Section 9 petition for interim relief, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court relying on Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 37 of the Act, affirming the rejection of the Section 9 petition. The High Court followed its earlier judgment in Dirk India (supra), which held that an unsuccessful party cannot maintain a Section 9 petition post-award.

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?

Appellant (Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv.): The judgment in Dirk India does not lay down good law as it fails to consider that if the award is set aside under Section 34, contractual rights revive, and the losing party would be remediless. Section 43(4) preserves the right to re-initiate arbitration. The 2019 amendment clarifies that tribunals cease jurisdiction post-award. The decision in Gayatri Balasamy allows modification of awards, undermining the premise of Dirk India. Section 9 uses the term 'party' without limitation, and the scope of interim measures is broader than Section 36. Reliance placed on GAIL and Saptarishi Hotels. Respondent (Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.): The arbitral process is consensual and final. Section 9 at the post-award stage is intended to secure the fruits of the award for the successful party. An unsuccessful party has no fruits to protect and cannot invoke Section 9. The only remedy is to challenge the award under Section 34 and seek a stay under Section 36(2). Reliance placed on Dirk India and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India.

A petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage is maintainable only by a party that has an enforceable award in its favour, i.e., the successful party. An unsuccessful party, having no 'fruits of award' to protect, cannot invoke Section 9 for interim measures. The provision at that stage is intended to safeguard the award for enforcement, not to provide a remedy to the losing party, whose recourse is limited to challenging the award under Section 34 and seeking a stay under Section 36(2).

Section 9(ii) is intended to protect through the measure, the fruits of a successful conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. A party whose claim has been rejected in the course of the arbitral proceedings cannot obviously have an arbitral award enforced in accordance with Section 36... When an interim measure of protection is sought before or during arbitral proceedings, such a measure is a step in aid to the fruition of the arbitral proceedings. When sought after an arbitral award is made but before it is enforced, the measure of protection is intended to safeguard the fruit of the proceedings until the eventual enforcement of the award.

The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief after losing in arbitration. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and the appeal under Section 37, relying on its earlier judgment in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were granted and heard together with other similar matters.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 2(h), Section 8, Section 11 (4) (5) (6), Section 12(4), Section 13(5), Section 16(6), Section 34, Section 36, Section 37, Section 43(4)