Interim orders under Section 17(2) of the A&C Act stand merged and unenforceable upon passing of a Final Award.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a petition under Section 17(2) for enforcement of an interim order remains maintainable after the pronouncement of the Final Award, especially when the interim directions are incorporated into the said Award

The court held

The Court held that the petition under Section 17(2) is not maintainable at this stage because the Interim Order has merged into the Final Award

It also directed

The Court dismissed the petition but granted the Decree Holder liberty to avail legal remedies for the enforcement of the Final Award in accordance with the law

01Facts

The Decree Holder (DH) filed a petition under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking enforcement of an Interim Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by a Sole Arbitrator

pp. 1-2

The interim order directed the Judgment Debtor (JD) to deposit 81.25% of monthly mesne profits (approx. Rs. 2.97 Crores) for the period of 01.11.2024 to 31.10.2025

p. 2

During the pendency of these enforcement proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal pronounced its Final Award on 02.03.2026

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The Final Award allowed Claim No. 2, directing the JD to pay the same 81.25% share of mesne profits starting from 01.11.2024 until the handing over of possession

p. 3 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether a petition under Section 17(2) for enforcement of an interim order remains maintainable after the pronouncement of the Final Award, especially when the interim directions are incorporated into the said Award

p. 2 · ¶ 3

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended in 2015 and 2019), which empowers an Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures during proceedings

pp. 6-8

Section 17(2) creates a legal fiction whereby such orders are deemed orders of a Civil Court and are enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

pp. 7-8

The court relied on Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan (2017) 16 SCC 119, which established that Section 17(2) provides a "complete solution" for the enforcement of interim orders

pp. 5, 8-9

The court further considered Section 36, which stipulates that a final award can only be enforced as a decree after the expiry of the three-month challenge period under Section 34(3)

p. 4, 12

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 Section 27 Section 34 Section 36 Section 37

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while Section 17(2) provides an independent right to enforce interim orders, the power of a Tribunal to grant such measures is temporally restricted to the pendency of arbitral proceedings

p. 11 · ¶ 25

In this case, the substantive directions of the Interim Order dated 06.11.2025 were "subsumed and merged" into the Final Award dated 02.03.2026

p. 12 · ¶ 26

The Court observed that allowing enforcement of the interim order at this stage would bypass the statutory safeguards of Section 36, which mandates a waiting period before a final award becomes enforceable as a decree

p. 12 · ¶ 27

To maintain hormonal operation between Section 17 and Section 36, the Court held that once interim directions are incorporated into the Final Award, the enforcement must follow the regime applicable to Awards rather than parallel proceedings under Section 17(2)

p. 13 · ¶ 29-30

05Holding

The Court held that the petition under Section 17(2) is not maintainable at this stage because the Interim Order has merged into the Final Award

pp. 13-14

The Court dismissed the petition but granted the Decree Holder liberty to avail legal remedies for the enforcement of the Final Award in accordance with the law

p. 14 · ¶ 33-34

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF