Direct conversion of Section 9 petition to Section 17 application upon mutual consent for sole arbitrator appointment.

The Petitioner, JioStar India Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures against the Respondents

The dispute arose from a Media Rights Agreement (16.09.2024) and an Airtime Sale Agreement (18.09.2024) related to the "Legends League Cricket Masters T20 tournament"

The Petitioner sought various reliefs, including the deposit of ₹3,59,14,775/-, restraining the Respondents from transferring media rights to third parties, and staying the termination of the Agreement dated 07.03.2026

During the proceedings, the parties reached a consensus to refer the matter to a sole arbitrator

1. Whether the court should grant interim protection regarding the franchise fees and ticket collections pending arbitration

2. Whether the court can dispense with the Section 21 notice and Section 11 proceedings when parties mutually consent to arbitration during Section 9 proceedings

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the court to grant interim measures of protection before or during arbitral proceedings

Section 17 of the Act, which allows an Arbitral Tribunal to order interim measures, by treating the Section 9 petition as an application under Section 17 for the arbitrator's future consideration

The court also relied on the principle of party autonomy under Section 11 and Section 21 regarding the appointment of an arbitrator and commencement of proceedings

The court noted that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral of the dispute to a sole arbitrator

To prevent undue delay, the court exercised its discretion to dispense with the procedural formalities of a Section 21 notice and a separate Section 11 petition

Regarding the interim relief, the court recorded an undertaking from the Respondents’ counsel that franchise fees and ticket collections (as detailed in an affidavit dated 04.04.2026) would not be alienated or encumbered

The court reasoned that since the underlying dispute was valued at approximately ₹4 crores, a senior advocate should be appointed to adjudicate the merits while the existing Section 9 petition remains to be treated as a Section 17 application before the newly appointed Tribunal

The Respondents were directed to maintain the status quo regarding franchise fees and ticket collections, keeping them intact until further orders by the Arbitrator

The Section 9 petition was ordered to be treated as an application under Section 17 before the Tribunal

The court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits and all rights, contentions, and jurisdictional objections remain open for the Arbitrator’s determination