After mediation fails, a pending Section 9 petition may be treated as a Section 17 application before the arbitrator.

Clime Finance Private Limited filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Its counsel stated that Respondent Nos. 1–7 were parties to the arbitration agreement and that the petitioner did not wish to press the petition against the remaining respondents, while seeking liberty to apply for their impleadment before the arbitrator if necessary.

The parties agreed to attempt mediation and, if mediation failed, to refer their disputes to arbitration.

They accepted the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and agreed to waive the appointment procedures in the arbitration agreement and the Act.

Interim orders made on 21 July 2026 were in force.

Whether the disputes should be referred to mediation before proceeding to arbitration.

Whether the Court could appoint a sole arbitrator by consent, notwithstanding the agreed appointment procedures.

Whether the pending Section 9 petition should continue as an interim-relief application before the arbitral tribunal if mediation failed.

The Court referred to Sections 9, 12(2), and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 9 provides for court-ordered interim measures; Section 12(2) requires an arbitrator to make the prescribed disclosure; and Section 17 concerns interim measures by the arbitral tribunal.

The Court also proceeded on the parties’ agreement that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the contractual and statutory appointment procedures could be waived.

No precedent was cited.

The parties jointly sought mediation and agreed that unresolved disputes would be arbitrated.

Given their agreement on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and their waiver of the appointment procedures, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

To preserve the interim-relief question if mediation failed, the Court directed that the Section 9 petition be treated as a Section 17 application before the tribunal, and that existing interim orders continue until the arbitrator considered the matter and passed an appropriate order.

The Court left questions of arbitrability and jurisdiction for the arbitrator to decide.

If mediation failed, Mr. Virender Kumar Bansal, Principal District Judge (Retd.), was appointed sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre; he was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks of the mediation-failure report and provide the required disclosure under Section 12(2).

The Section 9 petition is to be treated as a Section 17 application if mediation fails; the existing interim orders continue pending the arbitrator’s consideration, and the arbitrator was requested to consider that application within 30 days of constitution of the tribunal.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.