By consent, Section 9 proceedings were treated as a Section 17 application before the sole arbitrator.

The Petitioner had been awarded a project by PSB Alliance Pvt. Ltd. for the supply, installation and maintenance of an e-Auction Solution. For executing part of the project, it engaged the Respondent under a Service Agreement dated 30 April 2024, under which the Respondent was required to develop and support the e-Auction Solution, develop customised applications, provide source code, and perform allied works.

Disputes arose when the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had failed to perform several contractual obligations and had directly communicated with PSB Alliance without authorisation.

Following an email sent by the Respondent to PSB Alliance on 7 August 2026, the Petitioner terminated the Service Agreement and invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) on 8 August 2026.

The Petitioner thereafter filed the present Section 9 petition seeking, inter alia, return and preservation of data, source code and confidential information; restraints against misuse or disclosure; restraints against dealings with PSB Alliance and end-users; and security for various monetary claims.

During the hearing, the Respondent undertook at the Bar to maintain confidentiality in respect of the data and other information under the agreement and expressed no objection to reference of the disputes to arbitration.

Whether the disputes between the parties should be referred to arbitration by appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Act.

Whether the pending Section 9 petition should be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act for consideration by the arbitral tribunal.

Whether the parties’ request for amicable settlement should be referred to mediation pending commencement of arbitration.

The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which permits a court to grant interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings; Section 17, which empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures after its constitution; and Section 21, under which arbitral proceedings commence upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration.

Where parties consent to arbitration and appointment of an arbitrator, the Court may constitute the arbitral tribunal and permit the parties to raise all objections, including objections to jurisdiction and arbitrability, before the tribunal.

The Court also acted on the parties’ consensual request to pursue mediation and referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN).

The Petitioner had invoked arbitration and sought interim protection under Section 9, while the Respondent consented to reference of the disputes to arbitration and undertook to preserve confidentiality.

In view of the parties’ joint submission, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator and directed that the arbitration be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Rather than adjudicating the contested allegations concerning contractual breach, data, source code, confidentiality, or monetary liability, the Court left all pleas—including arbitrability and jurisdiction—to the learned arbitrator.

The parties’ Section 9 claims were accordingly left open for appropriate consideration through an application under Section 17 before the constituted tribunal.

Since both parties expressed willingness to attempt settlement, the Court also referred the matter to mediation and fixed the parties’ appearance before the mediation centre.

Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Retd.), former Judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as the sole arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the rules and aegis of DIAC.

The parties were permitted to raise all objections before the arbitrator, and were given liberty to file applications under Section 17 for interim relief.

The matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN), with an expectation that mediation would conclude within four weeks and with directions to appear on 18 August 2026.

If mediation failed, the sole arbitrator was directed to enter reference within three weeks from 18 August 2026.

The Court recorded the Respondent’s undertaking to maintain confidentiality but did not finally adjudicate the parties’ substantive claims or grant the extensive interim reliefs sought in the petition.