1

JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.
1.

Poweru/s9isnotunbridled.Itissubjecttocertainlimitationsand

restrictions, such as, firstly, it can be exercised by the Court to the same
extentandinthesamemannerasitcouldforthepurposeofinrelationto
anyproceedingbeforeitand,secondly,theexerciseofthepowertomake
interimarrangementsshouldnotmilitateagainstanypowerwhichmightbe
vestedinanArbitralTribunal.TheinterimmeasureswhichaCourtmaybe
requestedbyapartytotakearedetailedinsubclauses(a)to(e)ofclause
(ii)ofSection9.Similarmeasuresweregiveninparagraphs1to4ofthe
SecondScheduleoftherepealedAct.Theimprovementnowmadeisthatan
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
interimmeasuresofprotectionasmayappeartotheCourttobejustand
convenient.Thepowerconferredu/s9oftheActistobeexercisedbythe
Courtonlyinsparingcircumstances.Apartytothearbitrationproceeding
cannot be allowed to challenge normal and routine orders passed by an
ArbitralTribunal.The interim directionscanbeissuedu/s9onlyfor the
purposeofarbitrationproceedingandwithaviewtoprotecttheinterestof
the parties which otherwise cannot be protected or safeguarded by the
ArbitralTribunal.Thepowercontemplatedu/s9isnotintendedtofrustrate
the arbitration proceeding. Power to pass orders with respect to interim
measurescannotbeexercisedbyaCourtifitwouldprejudicethepowers
vested in the Arbitrator and rendershim incapable to resolve the dispute
betweentheparties.Ifalongropeisgiventothepartiestoapproachthe
Courtu/s9oftheActinthateventproceedingsbeforetheArbitralTribunal
willbethrottledanditwouldbecomedifficultfortheArbitralTribunalto
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

proceedfurtherinthematter.Therefore,toallowthejurisdictionu/s9tobe
invokedforinterimdirection,onehastobecautiousandcircumspect.Ifthe
applicationofthenature,ashasbeenfiledinthepresentcasebeforethe
DistrictJudge,isallowedtobeentertained,itwillopenupthefloodgatesof
litigationandtheCourtwillbemulctedwithmanynumberofapplicationsof
thisnatureleavingtheArbitratorhelpless.Ifsuchtypeofapplicationsare
permittedtobefiled,theverypurposeoftheActwillitselfbefrustratedand
rendered nugatory. Thus even if the application purported to have been
madeu/s34oftheActbeforetheCourtistreatedtobeanindependent
applicationu/s9oftheAct,itwould,fortheabovereasons,beuntenable.
TheintendmentofthenewActistominimisethescopeforinterventionof
Courtsinarbitration matters.TheArbitralTribunalhasbeengivenafree
hand to deal with the disputes between the parties and to arrive at its
resolution.AfinalityhasbeenattachedtoanArbitralawardu/s35oftheAct
and the law has turned a full circle as an award by itself has become
enforceableasadecreeofaCourt.Theawardisnotopentochallengeonthe
groundthattheArbitratorhasreachedawrongconclusionorhasfailedto
appreciatethefacts.Ontheotherhand,u/s34oru/s9oftheAct,whena
Courtis called upon to decide the objection raised bya party againstan
Arbitralawardortomakeinterimmeasuresofprotection,thejurisdictionof
theCourtislimitedasexpresslyindicatedinthesaidprovisions.Ithasno
jurisdiction tositin appeal andexamine the correctnessof the awardon
meritswithreferencetomaterialsproducedbeforetheArbitralTribunalorto
issue an order of injunction, which may result in constructing the
proceedingsbeforetheArbitralTribunal.TheCourtcannotsitinappealover
theviewsoftheArbitratorbyreexaminingandreassessingthematerials,in
exerciseofitspoweru/s34oftheActandsimilarlyunderthegarbofinterim
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

measures of protection it cannot put impediments in the progress of the

Arbitralproceeding.
1.1.

ParaNos.11to14ofDeepakMitrav/sDistrictJudge,Allahabad,

reportedinAIR2000Allahabad9.
2.

Whetheranapplicationseekinginterimorderbeforecommencement

of proceeding is maintainable? Held Yes. An application for Interim

measurescanbemadeatprereferencestage.
2.1.

KohliBrothersv/sM/s.AtlantisMultiplexPvt.Ltd.,reportedinAIR

2008 Allahabad 43. Shri Bal Kishan Agrawal Glass Industries Limited,
Dholpurav/sUnion ofIndia,reportedinAIR2005Allahabad361.Bimal
GhoshandOrs.v/sSmt.KalpanaMajumdar,AIR2007Culcutta293(DB).
Himcon Projects Pvt. Ltd. v/s LMZ Energy (India) Ltd., AIR 2012
Chhattisgarh28(DB).GlobeCogenerationPowerLtd.v/sSriHiranyakeshi
SahakariSakkereKarkhaneNiyamit,Sankeshwar,Karnataka,reportedinAIR
2005Karnataka94(DB).
3.

WhatcouldbetheamountofCourtFeesvaluationforpurposeof

jurisdictionwithrespecttoanapplicationpreferredu/s9oftheAct?
3.1.

Thepropervaluationforthepurposesofjurisdictionunderu/s9of

theActshouldbethesubjectmatteroftheamountlikelytobeaffected.
M/s.ModernMetalIndustriesv/sSmt.ShantiParolia,reportedinAIR2004
Allahabad227.
4.

Parties agreed for final settlement of disputes under Rules of

Conciliation andArbitration ofInternationalChamber of Commerce.They

also agreed to construe and interpolate contract in accordance with
substantivelawsofStateofNewJerseyandapplicablelawsofU.S.A.They
have nowhere agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts in India. Whether
jurisdictionofIndianCourtsexcludedevenifpartofcauseofactionarose
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

withintheirjurisdiction?HeldYes.
4.1.

ProgressiveConstructionLtd.v/sTheLouisBergerGroupInc.,AIR

2012AndhraPradesh38(DB).VideoconIndustriesLtd.v/sUnionofIndia,
reportedinAIR2011SC2040.
5.

Parties by agreement deciding that place of arbitration would be

StateofOrissaWhetherunderthiscircumstances,onlyCourtsinStateof
Orissawouldhaveterritorialjurisdictiontoentertainarbitrationagreement
includingapplicationforinterimreliefu/s9ofAct,irrespectiveofwhether
causeofactionhadarisenwhollyorinpart?HeldYes.
5.1.

WhenthepartiesinArt.10oftheagreementhadagreedtotheplace

ofarbitrationasStateofOrissathenconsideringthedefinitionof"Court"as
definedinS.2(1)(e)oftheAct,theCourtsintheStateofOrissa,alonewill
havethejurisdictiontodecidethequestionsformingthesubjectmatterof
arbitration, but not the Courts in Andhra Pradesh irrespective of whether
causeofactionhasarisenwhollyorinpart.Thepartycannotbepermittedto
invokethetheoryofcauseofactionbyapplicationoftheprovisionsofthe
Code of Civil Procedure, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Court at
Hyderabad,forentertainingapplicationunderS.9oftheAct.
5.2.

AsthepartiesinArt.10oftheagreement,haveagreedtotheplace

ofarbitrationasStateofOrissa,onlytheCourtsintheStateofOrissa,as
defined in S. 2(1)(e) of the Act, will have jurisdiction to entertain all
applicationswithrespecttothearbitrationagreement,includingapplication
underS.9ofthe Act,andifthe Courtsin AndhraPradeshentertainthe
applicationunderS.9oftheAct,thenallsubsequentapplicationarisingout
ofthearbitrationagreementshallhavetobemadeintheCourtsinAndhra
PradeshatHyderabad,whichisnottheintendmentofthepartiesunderArt.
10oftheagreement.
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

5.3.

IftheapplicationunderS.9oftheActisallowedtobeadjudicated

bytheCourtatHyderabad,thenhavingregardtotheprovisionsofS.42of
theActandthebarcontainedtherein,allthesubsequentarbitralproceedings
shallbemadeinthatCourtalone.ThephraseemployedinS.42oftheAct,
namely"withrespecttoanarbitrationagreement,"haswidemeaningandit
includestheproceedingsunderS.9oftheAct.Inviewofthefactthatthe
agreementcontainsaclauseinArt.10,whereunderthepartieshaveagreed
to"theplaceofarbitrationshallbeintheStateofOrissa,"iftheapplicationis
entertainedbytheCourtsintheStateofAndhraPradesh,thenitwouldhave
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.theCivilCourtatHyderabad,uponwhich,thepartieshavenot
conferredanyjurisdiction.M/s.JyothiTurboPowerServicesPvt.Ltd.v/s
M/s.ShenzhenShandongNuclearPowerConstructionCo.Ltd.,reportedin
2011AndhraPradesh111(DB).
5.4.

FurtherheldinparaNo.36thatwhenCourtcomingtoconclusion

thatithadnoterritorialjurisdictiontoentertainapplication,Courtneednot
gointomeritsofcase.
6.

An application for interim injunction against invocation of bank

guaranteeonallegationoffraudisenoughtopassanorderofinjunction?
Forgettingstayagainsttheinvocationofbankguarantee,Courthastorecord
finding that applicant would suffer irreparable injury and if, there is no
possibilityofrespondentssufferinganyirreparableinjury,orderrestraining
appellantfrominvokingbankguaranteecannotbepassed.
6.1.

OilandNaturalGasCorporationLtd.v/sM/s.JagsonIntl.Ltd.,AIR

2005Bombay335.HimadriChemicalsIndustriesLtd.v/sCoalTarRefining
Company,reportedinAIR2007SC2798.M/s.HindustanConstructionCo.
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

Ltd.v/sM/s.SatlujJalVidyutNigamLtd.,AIR2006Delhi169.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.,reportedinAIR2007SC2716.
7.

IsitnecessaryforthepartyseekinginterimmeasurefromtheCourt

u/s9(ii)(d)forsecurityoftheamountindisputeinthearbitrationbythe
Courtduringthearbitralproceedingstosatisfytheconditionsofattachment
beforejudgmentunderOrder38Rule5C.P.C.?HeldNo.PowerofCourt
topassinterimprotectionordercannotberestrictedbyimportingprovisions
ofO.38,R.5ofCivilP.C.inSection9oftheAct.
7.1.

NationalShippingCompanyofSaudiArabiav/sSentransIndustries

Ltd.,AIR2004Bombay136(DB).
8.

Whetheronthebasisoftheavermentsmadeintheapplicationu/s9

oftheAct,Courtcanpasstheinterimorder,whichisanorderinthenature
ofattachmentbeforejudgment?HeldNo.Applicantshouldshow,prima
facie,thathisclaimisbonafideandvalidandalsosatisfytheCourtthatthe
defendantisabouttoremoveordisposeofthewholeorpartofhisproperty,
withtheintentionofobstructingordelayingtheexecutionofanydecreethat
maybepassedagainsthim,beforepowerisexercisedunderOrder38Rule5
CPC. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of
attachment before judgment. Since, said principles squarely apply to the
proceedingsunderSection9(ii)oftheAct,Courtbeforepassinganydirection
inthenatureofattachmentbeforeawardshouldfollowthoseprinciples.
8.1.

RashmiCementLtd.v/sTrafiguraBeheerB.v/s,reportedinAIR

2011Culcutta37(DB).BrandValueCommunicationsLtd.v/sEskayVideo
PrivateLtd.,reportedinAIR2010Culcutta166(DB).M/s.GlobalCompany
v/sM/s.NationalFertilizersLtd.,AIR1998Delhi397.
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

9.

Whetheranapplicationu/s9oftheActcanbedismissedforwantof

originalagreementasrequiredu/s8?HeldNo.ProvisionsofSection8
oftheActoperateindifferentfieldandcannotbeinvokedinaproceeding
u/s9ofAct.
9.1.

M/s.MercuryExportsv/sCLCTanner'sAssociation,reportedinAIR

2011Culcutta117(DB).
10.

Whetherbarimposedu/s69ofthePartnershipAct,1932)forfiling

asuit,affectmaintainabilityofapplicationu/s9oftheAct?HeldNo.
10.1.

FirmAshokTradersv/sGurumukhDasSaluja,reportedinAIR2004

SC1433.
11.

Exclusive jurisdiction and Cause of action Hire and purchase

agreement executed at place 'C' but place 'B' is wrongly mentioned. All
installmentspaidatplace'C',seizuresofvehiclegivingrisetodisputesand
differencesalsotakingplaceatplace'C'andnopartofcauseofactionarises
atplace'B',underthiscircumstancesCourtsatplace'B'cannotbesaidto
haveexclusivejurisdiction.
11.1.

TataFinanceLimited,Appellantv/sPragatiParibahan,reportedin

AIR2000Culcutta241(DB).MahindraandMahindraFinancialServicesLtd.
v/sJivrajbhaiKhumabhaiRabari,passedinF.A.5443to5460and5462to
5469of2007,dated15/07/2011byHon'bleGujaratHighCourt.
12.

Whetheranapplicationpreferredu/s9oftheActcanbemadein

relationtoforeignArbitration?HeldYes.ApplicabilityofPart1oftheAct
isnotrestrictedbyS.2(2)toarbitration/internationalcommercialarbitration
thattakesplaceinIndia.Furtherheldthatomissionbylegislaturetoprovide
thatPart1willnotapplytointernationalcommercialarbitrationtakingplace
outsideIndia,indicatesthatPart1alsoappliestoarbitrationsoutsideIndia.
Finally held that an application for interim measures can be made in
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

arbitrationproceedingstakingplaceinforeigncountry.
12.1.

BhatiaInternational,Appellantv/sBulkTradingS.A.,AIR2002SC

1432(FB).OlexFocasPty.Ltd.v/sSkodaexportCo.Ltd.,reportedinAIR
2000Delhi161.
13.

Whetherthepowersu/s9availabletotheCourtandthepowersu/s

17 available to the Arbitral Tribunal to make interim measures are

independent?HeldYesTheremaybesomedegreeofoverlapbetweenthe
twoprovisionsbutthepowersu/s9aremuchwiderinasmuchastheyextend
totheperiodpreandposttheawardaswellaswithregardtothesubject
matter and nature of the orders. The pendency of an application u/s17,
therefore,doesnotdenude the Courtof itspowersto make anorder for
interimmeasuresunderSection9ofthesaidAct.
13.1.

NationalHighwaysAuthorityofIndia(NHAI)v/sM/s.ChinaCoal

ConstructionGroupCorpn,AIR2006Delhi134.
14.

ApplicationforproductionofdocumentsunderRule14ofOrderXI

ofCPCismaintainabilityu/s9oftheAct?HeldNo.Notmaintainablein
viewofprovisionsofSection9ofAct,whichonlydealswithinterimmeasure
byCourt.
14.1.

NarainSahaiAggarwalv/sSmt.SantoshRani,reportedinAIR1998

Delhi144.
15.

Whetherproceedingu/s9oftheActismaintainableonlybetween

'parties' to arbitration agreement? Held Yes Facts of the case were,

oppositepartyNo.1beingfinancedbyapplicantpurchasedequipmentand
enteredintoarbitrationagreementwithoppositepartyNo.2forexecutionof
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
Applicantfinanciercannotbesaidtopartytoarbitrationagreementbetween
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

oppositepartiesCannotseekimpleadmentorprotectionofhisrightunder
proceedingsu/s9oftheAct.
15.1.

SREIInfrastructureFinanceLtd.v/sBhageerathaEngineeringLtd.,

reported in AIR 2009 Gauhati 110. Shoney Sanil v/s M/s. Coastal
Foundations(P)Ltd.,reportedinAIR2006Kerala2006.UnionofIndiav/s
M/s.SaravanaConstructionsPrivateLimited,reportedinAIR2010Madras
6.
16.

Whetherduringthependencyofanapplicationu/s9ofActanother

application filed u/O.39 of CPC seeking interim injunction can be

entertained?HeldNottenableSinceanapplicationu/s9oftheActitself
isbywayofaninterimmeasure.
16.1.

M/s. Nikitha BuildTech (P) Ltd., Bangalore v/s M/s. Natural

TextilesPvt.Ltd.,Bangalore,AIR2010Karnataka170(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,

discretionu/s9oftheActcannotbeinvokedincasewhereawardisripefor
executionAwardcanstraightwaybeexecutedinaccordancewithS.36of
Act.
17.1.

TataMotorsFinanceLtd.v/sNazeer.M.Muhammedkutty,AIR2011

Kerala147(DB).
18.

M.P.MadhyasthanAdhikaranAdhiniyam(29of1983),S.2(1)and

20Whetheracontractforconstructionofwatertreatmentplantis'Works
Contract' within S. 2(1) of 1983 Act? Held Yes Therefore, Civil Court's
jurisdictiontoentertainitu/s9oftheActisbarred.
18.1.

Mrs.KaminiMalhotrav/sStateofM.P.,AIR2003M.P.13.

18.2.

ButinthecaseofM.P.RuralRoadDevelopmentAuthorityv/sM/s.

L.G.ChaudharyEngineers,reportedinAIR2012SC1228hasreferredthis
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

10

issuetoLargerBench.
19.

Facts of the case were: The appellant filed an application under

Section9oftheActcontendingthatunderHirePurchaseAgreement,the
applicanthadletonhirevariousmachineriestorespondentandhehadto
paythehirechargesforaperiodof36months.However,therespondenthad
failed to pay the hire charges and additional finance charges. It was the
furthercaseoftheapplicantthatintheHirePurchaseAgreement,necessary
arbitrationclauseisincorporatedandassuch,itisentitledtoinvokethesaid
clauseseekingdirection,directingtherespondenttofurnishbankguarantee
for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the
machinery and handover the same to the applicant. The respondent
contendedthattheamountwasoriginallyborrowedfromoneHaritaFinance
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
particularlyduetothefactthattherespondentcompanyhasbecomeasick
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(hereinaftercalledas'BIFR')toframearehabilitationscheme
andadraftschemewasalreadypublishedon3012003andbyvirtueofthe
specific bar under Section 22(1) of the Act, there cannot be any distress
proceedings and no legal proceedings can be maintained against the
respondentcompanywhichhasbeendeclaredasasickindustry.
19.1.

Hon'bleDivisionBenchheldthat:theprotectionisavailabletherein

isonlyasagainsttheCompanyandanyofitsproperties,whereasthepresent
applicationisfiledonlytorepossessthemachinerieswhicharehiredtothe
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

11

respondentcompany,theownershipofwhich,hasnotbeentransferredtoit.
Itispertinenttonotethatuntilthepaymentofalltheinstalmentsaremade
bythehirer,theownershipofthehiredmachinerywouldstillremainwith
theappellantcompanyandhencethepresentproceedingsdonotfallwithin
thescopeofSection22(1)oftheAct.
19.2.

M/s.TVSInvestmentsLtd.,Appellantv/sM/s.EssorpeeMillsLtd.,

reportedinAIR2004Madras175(DB).
20.

Whether Court can pass an order under Rule 10 of Order VII of

CPC?HeldNo.InArbitrationAct,noprocedurehasbeenprescribedfor
return of application nor isCPCapplicablein a strictsensetoarbitration
proceeding.Therefore,Courtisofviewthatwritapplicationismaintainable
againstimpugnedorder.
20.1.

M/s.D.T.M.Construction(Indian)Ltd.v/sCapt.P.K.Srivastava,

reportedinAIR2011Orissa61.
21.

Whetheranapplicationu/s9canbeallowedwhenthereisreasonto

believethatcaseoftheapplicantcanbecompensatedintermsofmoneyfor
theinjurysufferedbyhim?HeldNo.
21.1.

ExecutiveEngineerv/sBichitranandaBehera,reportedinAIR2008

Orissa44.KiranMohantyv/sM/s.WoodburnDevelopersandBuilders(P)
Ltd.,reportedinAIR2006Orissa31.
22.

WhetherpowersofCourtu/s9oftheActisindependentofSpecific

ReliefActornot?HeldExerciseofpoweru/s9oftheActmustbebasedon
wellrecognizedprinciplesgoverninggrantofinteriminjunctionsandother
ordersofinterimprotectionorappointmentofaReceiverandrestrictions
placedbySpecificReliefActcancontrolexerciseofpoweru/s9oftheAct.
22.1.

M/s. Arvind Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. Kalinga Mining

Corporation,reportedinAIR2007SC2144.AdhunikSteelsLtd.v/sOrissa
JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.

12

ManganeseandMineralsPvt.Ltd.,reportedinAIR2007SC2563.

JudgmentsonSection9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996.