Interim measures, etc., by Court
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with interim measures, etc., by Court. ] A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court— (i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
1[(1)] A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court—
(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or
(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;
(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;
(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;
(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;
(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient,
and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.
2[(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine.
(3) Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application under sub-section (1), unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under section 17 efficacious.]
Section 9, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 2
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Deed of Assignment transferring intellectual property rights (specifically, 50% ownership of a trade mark) 'absolutely and forever' cannot be unilaterally revoked by the assignor upon termination of the underlying business agreement. A negative covenant in such a Deed (prohibiting use or registration of the trade mark except through the assignee) is enforceable through injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, because it restrains use of specific intellectual property, not the carrying on of trade or business. An interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, maintaining status quo pending arbitration is justified and within the jurisdiction of the District Court to protect the rights of both parties.
On this section: Provides for interim relief pending arbitration proceedings. The Court held that interim orders under Section 9 are justified to maintain status quo and protect rights of both parties pending final arbitral decision. The District Judge was justified in passing an interim order restraining the Respondent from selling products except through the Appellant.
-
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when properly read in light of its principles of party autonomy (Sections 2(6), 2(8), 19(2)), definition of arbitration (Section 2(1)(a) including arbitration administered by permanent arbitral institutions), and the commencement of arbitral proceedings (Section 21 read with institutional rules), provides that an Emergency Arbitrator's award delivered under institutional rules such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules is an 'order' under Section 17(1) of the Act. Such orders are enforceable under Section 17(2) as if they were orders of a court. No appeal lies against an order passed under Section 17(2) in enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's award, either under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act or under the Code of Civil Procedure, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive and exclusive remedy for appeals in arbitration matters, and Section 37(2)(b) provides appeals only for orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17(1), not for enforcement proceedings under Section 17(2). A party that has agreed to be governed by institutional arbitration rules cannot subsequently characterize an Emergency Arbitrator's award as a nullity and ignore it until such award is formally set aside through proper procedures, as doing so violates the rule of law and fundamental principles of obedience to court orders.
On this section: Interim measures by courts before or during arbitral proceedings. Sections 9(2) and 9(3) were amended by 2015 Amendment Act to complement Section 17, reducing court involvement once tribunal is constituted.
-
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Coupons Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as 'awards'. Such orders are an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such orders are referable to and are made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act. Additionally, no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive code for appeals from orders under the Arbitration Act, and the legal fiction created by Section 17(2) is limited to enforcement purposes only and does not extend to appellate jurisdiction.
On this section: Contrasted with Section 17 to show parallel scheme whereby courts and arbitral tribunals can grant interim relief at different stages of proceedings
-
Rapid Metrorail Gurgaon Limited Etc vs Haryana Mass Rapid Transport Corporation Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A consent order passed by a court is a binding agreement with the imprimatur of the court and carries special status as something more than a mere contract, containing elements of both command and contract. When parties knowingly agree to settlement terms before a court, including obligations to deposit funds in escrow based on determination by an independent third party (CAG), and those parties are fully aware of the circumstances and investigations at the time of consent, it is impermissible for one party to subsequently resile from the obligations by raising facts known at the time of consent. The scope of an independent determination (financial audit) must be understood as limited to the matter for which the independent body was appointed, and the conclusion that certain matters fall outside this scope does not render the determination incomplete within its defined parameters. Public bodies are bound by consent orders entered into by their authorized representatives and cannot be permitted to resile from solemn commitments made before courts, particularly where such obligations relate to protection of financial institutions' interests in infrastructure projects and carry vital elements of public interest in maintaining the financing structure for infrastructure development.
On this section: Remedies available to parties for seeking interim directions; Section 9 allows approach to court with jurisdiction, Section 17 allows approach to Arbitral Tribunal; court clarified ordinarily High Court would decline to entertain arbitrable disputes
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deed of assignment transfers property (including intellectual property such as trademark) absolutely and forever, with clear conditions stipulating that neither party can use or register the mark independently after termination of the joint venture, the assignor cannot unilaterally revoke such assignment. The enforcement of negative covenants contained in such deeds through injunctions is permissible under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provided the covenant is not merely a restraint on trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, but rather a restriction on use of specific property. In such circumstances, an interim order restraining the assignor from using the trademark pending arbitration is justified to maintain status quo and protect both parties' rights, and such order should not be interfered with unless it is clearly arbitrary or unjust. The adequacy of money compensation must be assessed in light of the proprietary nature of the interest acquired; where a party has acquired a substantial proprietary right in valuable intellectual property with associated goodwill through a clear deed, injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy, not monetary compensation alone.
On this section: Court applied this section to justify the District Judge's power to pass interim orders protecting the status quo and rights of parties pending completion of arbitration proceedings
-
Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where parties to a pre-BALCO Singapore-seated SIAC agreement expressly exclude Part I of the Arbitration Act except s.9, a s.34 petition in India to set aside the foreign award is not maintainable (Bhatia International exception / BALCO). Seat Singapore + SIAC Rules = implied exclusion of s.34. Dhanuka J. The related s.9 fraud/interim line later reached the Supreme Court in Avitel Post Studioz v. HSBC (2020) 14 SCC 1 (different issue: 'serious allegations of fraud' for s.9).
On this section: Parties kept only s.9 of Part I; that carve-out does not reopen s.34 at the Indian seat.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… No. 448/2023, titled " Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP vs. Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali", will stand revived and will be decided by the High Court at Calcutta in accordance with law. We are also informed that the appellant(s) has/have filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been disposed of, granting certain reliefs. It will be open to the appellant(s) to seek extension of interim relief before the High Court. The impugned judgment(s) is/are set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending …
-
… Bunkers onboard the Ship M.V. African Eagle 10 (supra). The relied upon paragraphs 17, 18, 21 22, 23, 25, 31, 37, 38, 48, 49 and 51 are reproduced herein: 17. In Golden Progress (supra), what the Court had to consider was whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for security pending the award could be obtained by arrest of a ship in rem. The Court held, for arrest of a vessel for obtaining security for an award that may be made in the arbitration proceeding, an application under Section 9 of the said Act is not maintainable. …
-
… JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE … J U D G M E N T Two (2) arbitration petitions were filed before this Court by M/s JRA Infrastructure Ltd.. Arb. P. No. 01 of 2025, being an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereas Arb. P. No. 02 of 2025 was filed invoking section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both the arbitration petitions (along with one interlocutory application filed by the respondent Union of India) were taken up for consideration on earlier dates. …
Questions about Section 9
What have the courts held on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra (02 Dec 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides for interim relief pending arbitration proceedings. The Court held that interim orders under Section 9 are justified to maintain status quo and protect rights of both parties pending final arbitral decision. The District Judge was justified in passing an interim order restraining the Respondent from selling products except through the Appellant. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 9, section 9 Arbitration Act, section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type federal arbitration act 9 usc 1 16 and federal arbitration act 9 usc 1 et seq. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra (02 Dec 2011).
What should I read with Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 17 (Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal), section 36 (Enforcement), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, commonly called interim measures arbitration, and cited as Arbitration Act 9, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.