Consent to Appoint Arbitrator Converts Section 9 Petition into Section 17 Application Before the Arbitral Tribunal

The Petitioner, CARS24 Services Private Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim reliefs against the Respondent, Dreams Car

The dispute arose from a Franchise Agreement dated 22.04.2024

The Petitioner sought to restrain the Respondent from alienating specific inventory and requested mandatory injunctions for the delivery of physical possession and protection of the inventory's condition

During the proceedings, both parties reached a consensus to refer the disputes to arbitration rather than adjudicate the Section 9 petition on merits

Whether the parties’ consensus to refer the dispute to arbitration and waive formal requirements under Section 11 and Section 21 of the Act warrants the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the Court

Whether the pending Section 9 petition should be converted into an application under Section 17 for adjudication by the newly appointed Arbitrator

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the Respondent for alleged violation of the interim order dated 28.11.2025

The court primarily applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the Court

Section 17 of the Act, which empowers an Arbitral Tribunal to pass interim orders

Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators) and Section 21 (commencement of arbitral proceedings), noting that parties can expressly waive these formal procedural requirements

Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding the enforcement of judicial orders

Given the parties’ agreement (ad idem) on the arbitration clause (Clause 21) and the appointment of an arbitrator, the Court determined that the commencement of proceedings should not be delayed

The Court calculated the approximate claim value at Rs. 2 crores to justify the reference

To ensure continuity of protection, the Court directed that the Section 9 petition be treated as a Section 17 application before the Tribunal

Regarding the contempt plea (CCP(O) 15/2026), the Court noted the Petitioner's allegation that four vehicles were alienated in breach of the 28.11.2025 stay order, and while the Respondent denied this, the Court scheduled a separate hearing for the contempt matter to allow for replies

The Section 9 petition was disposed of with directions to treat it as a Section 17 application before the Arbitrator, and the interim order dated 28.11.2025 was extended until the Arbitrator adjudicates the application

The Contempt Petition [CCP(O) 15/2026] was kept alive and listed for 29.04.2026 to allow the Respondent to file a reply