Conversion of Section 9 Petition to Section 17 Application and Procedural Waivers Upon Mutual Consent of Parties

The Petitioners approached the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"), seeking various ad-interim measures against the Respondents.

These measures included staying the operation of a Defect Cure Notice dated January 7, 2026, and seeking prohibitive injunctions to restrain Respondents from terminating a Kodak Lens Distribution Agreement, invoking share pledges, or enforcing security interests under a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) dated April 4, 2023.

Clause 19 of the MSA provided for the resolution of disputes via arbitration under the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

During the hearing, counsel for both parties jointly submitted that the disputes should be referred to a Sole Arbitrator and the Section 9 petition be converted into a Section 17 petition for adjudication by the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Court can waive the statutory requirements of Section 21 (Notice of Arbitration) and Section 11 (Appointment of Arbitrator) when parties are ad idem on the appointment of an arbitrator?

2. Whether a Section 9 petition can be converted into a Section 17 petition to be adjudicated by the appointed Arbitral Tribunal?

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the Court.

Section 17 regarding interim measures by the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Court also invoked the principle of party autonomy and procedural efficiency to waive the requirements of Section 21 (commencement of proceedings) and Section 11 (formal petition for appointment of arbitrator) when both parties consent to the reference and the individual arbitrator.

The Court noted that Clause 19 of the MSA clearly stipulated arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism.

Since the parties reached a consensus (ad idem) to refer the dispute—valued at approximately Rs. 17 Crores—to a specific retired Chief Justice, the Court held that the statutory requirements of a formal Section 21 notice and a Section 11 petition should be waived to avoid undue delay in adjudication.

The Court reasoned that referring the pending application for interim relief directly to the arbitrator under Section 17 would be the most efficient course of action.

To protect the parties' interests in the interim, the Court directed that the existing status quo/interim order dated February 26, 2026, would continue until the arbitrator could hear the converted Section 17 application.

The Section 9 petition was converted into a Section 17 petition to be decided by the Arbitrator as expeditiously as possible.

The Court ordered that the interim protection granted on February 26, 2026, shall remain in effect until the Arbitrator takes up the Section 17 petition.

All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open for the Arbitrator’s determination on merits.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.