Appeals against time-limited interim relief become infructuous once the restraint period expires.

The appeals challenged an order dated 15 June 2026 allowing Maarq Spaces and Properties LLP’s application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The order restrained the appellants from alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit schedule property until 90 days from the order or until the Arbitral Tribunal began functioning, whichever occurred earlier.

The High Court recorded that the 90-day period would expire on 13 September 2026.

1. Whether the appeals against the interim restraint order retained practical significance when the restraint period was about to expire.

2. Whether the appellants could revive the appeals if the Commercial Court extended the restraint.

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides the basis for the commercial appeals before the High Court.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers a court to grant interim measures in arbitration-related matters; the challenged order was made under that provision.

The judgment states no further test or precedent governing either provision; its decision turned on the limited duration of the restraint and the imminent expiry of that period.

The High Court did not examine the merits of the Section 9 order.

Because the restraint was due to expire on 13 September 2026—two days after the judgment—the appeals had, in the Court’s view, “lost implication”.

The Court therefore dismissed them without foreclosing revival if the Commercial Court extended the restraint.

It granted the appellants liberty to revive the appeals if the Commercial Court granted an extension.