Initiating enforcement does not preclude interim protection under Section 9 before award enforcement.

Under a Conversion Agreement dated 1 August 2021, the petitioner supplied materials to the respondent for conversion at the respondent’s plant.

The final arbitral award dated 31 July 2025 declared the petitioner entitled to the return of its raw materials, finished products and other goods at the plant, and restrained the respondent from obstructing their removal.

The respondent had separately initiated Section 9 proceedings concerning the goods; those proceedings were withdrawn because enforcement proceedings were pending before an Executing Court, where the goods had been attached.

After the respondent denied the petitioner’s requests to inspect the goods, the petitioner sought appointment of a Local Commissioner. At the hearing, the petitioner confined its request to inspection of the premises and the goods.

Whether the petition was maintainable under Section 9 despite enforcement proceedings concerning the goods being pending before the Executing Court.

Whether appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and inventory the goods was an appropriate interim measure, rather than an indirect enforcement of the award.

Section 9(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits a party to seek interim measures after an arbitral award is made but before it is enforced under Section 36; the words “before it is enforced” do not, by themselves, bar interim relief merely because enforcement proceedings have been initiated, although the appropriate relief depends on the facts and the nature of the protection sought.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in B.M. Insulation (P) Ltd. v. Vardeep Petro Chemical (P) Ltd., which relied on the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited.

A commission limited to inspection and preparation of an inventory may preserve and ascertain the condition of the subject matter without enforcing the award.

The Court rejected the maintainability objection because the award recognised the petitioner’s entitlement to the goods, while the petitioner had not commenced enforcement proceedings.

It held that the existence of enforcement proceedings initiated in relation to the goods did not automatically preclude Section 9 relief.

Given the petitioner’s denied requests for inspection and the uncertainty over the goods’ continued existence, identity and condition, an inspection and inventory were warranted. The Court considered this limited exercise distinct from enforcing the award.

They were authorised to record identifying and physical particulars, photograph and video the inspection, consult relevant records, note any shortage or obstruction, and seek police assistance if required.

The respondent was directed to cooperate; the Commissioners were to file their report within four weeks of executing the commission.

The petitioner was to bear the initial fees and expenses, and the petition was disposed of in those terms.