ARBITRATION – Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Post-award stage – Maintainability Petition under Section 9 maintainable even by party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings Expression “a party” includes all parties to arbitration agreement irrespective of outcome No statutory distinction between successful and unsuccessful party (Paras 29, 31, 62)

advocatemmmohan

ARBITRATION – Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Post-award stage – Maintainability

• Petition under Section 9 maintainable even by party unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings
• Expression “a party” includes all parties to arbitration agreement irrespective of outcome
• No statutory distinction between successful and unsuccessful party
  (Paras 29, 31, 62)

---

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Plain meaning rule – No addition or restriction

• Where statutory language is clear, Court cannot read limitations not provided by legislature
• Restricting Section 9 to successful party amounts to judicial legislation
  (Paras 28, 33, 55, 56)

---

ARBITRATION – Section 9 – Scope and object

• Object is to enable parties to seek interim protection till culmination of judicial process
• Interim measures available before, during and after award (till enforcement)
• Provision deliberately wider than UNCITRAL Model Law
  (Paras 34, 39, 41)

---

ARBITRATION – Post-award interim relief – Nature

• Relief not confined to securing “fruits of award”
• Includes protection of “subject matter of arbitration” and “amount in dispute”
• Wider amplitude than enforcement-centric approach
  (Para 47)

---

ARBITRATION – Sections 9, 34 and 36 – Distinct spheres

• Section 9: interim protection of subject matter
• Section 34: challenge to award
• Section 36: enforcement/stay
• Availability of remedy under Sections 34/36 not a bar to Section 9
  (Paras 42, 43)

---

ARBITRATION – Unsuccessful party – Right to interim relief

• Losing party may require protection where award under challenge
• Denial of Section 9 relief would render party remediless
• Distinction between “winning” and “losing” party not determinative
  (Paras 43, 49)

---

ARBITRATION – Modification of award – Effect

• Courts can modify arbitral award in limited circumstances
• Earlier assumption that Court can only set aside or uphold award incorrect
• Undermines basis of contrary High Court judgments
  (Para 45)

---

ARBITRATION – Precedents – Incorrect view of High Courts

• Judgments in Dirk India, Nussli Switzerland, Padma Mahadev, A. Chidambaram held not good law
• Contrary view of Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts approved
  (Paras 44, 61)

---

ARBITRATION – Interim relief – Principles governing grant

• Grant governed by:
  • prima facie case
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable injury
• Threshold higher for unsuccessful party
• Relief to be granted only in rare and compelling cases
  (Paras 59, 60)

---

ARBITRATION – Purposive vs literal interpretation

• Purposive interpretation not permissible where language is clear
• Literal interpretation to prevail unless absurdity or injustice
  (Paras 56, 58)

---

FINAL DISPOSITION

• Law settled: Section 9 maintainable even by unsuccessful party
• Appeals disposed/partly listed for merits
  (Paras 61–64)