Interim Relief Under Section 9 Cannot Be Invoked for Recovery of Admitted Contractual Dues Absent Exceptional Circumstances.

The Appellant was awarded a contract by Respondent No. 1 (GAIL) for terminal station works via a Letter of Acceptance dated 28.05.2018

The Appellant claimed works were completed on 30.11.2022 following various delays

The Appellant submitted a final bill, which it alleged was certified by the Project Management Consultant for a net release of approx. Rs. 2.08 Crores

Claiming GAIL withheld payment and attempted unlawful cross-recoveries from other contracts, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 23.04.2026, holding that Section 9 cannot be a substitute for the recovery of money

Execution of the contract involved disputes over performance, delays, and financial liabilities

1. Whether relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking payment of alleged admitted contractual dues, can be granted when the relief amounts to enforcement of a monetary claim.

2. Whether the Appellant demonstrated exceptional circumstances or a real likelihood of frustration of arbitral proceedings to warrant interim protection.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers courts to grant interim measures of protection to preserve the efficacy of arbitral proceedings or the subject matter of the dispute

Section 9(1)(ii)(b) regarding "securing the amount in dispute," noting it is a protective and interim jurisdiction, not intended for final adjudication or enforcement of money claims

Principles governing discretionary jurisdiction and the limited scope of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Act

The court reasoned that Section 9 is intended to aid arbitration by preserving the status quo, not to bypass the adjudicatory mechanism by granting final relief at an interlocutory stage

It found that the Appellant’s claims regarding "admitted liability"—based on bill certification, TDS deduction, and completion certificates—did not constitute conclusive determination of liability and remained matters for arbitral adjudication

The court observed that the Appellant's own pleadings regarding "wrongful withholding" and "arbitrary deductions" proved the existence of a live dispute

Crucially, the court found no evidence of imminent dissipation of assets by GAIL (a Public Sector Undertaking) or any risk that an eventual award would be unenforceable

The court held that the petition was a suit for money recovery "couched" as an interim measures application

The court upheld the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the Appellant remains free to invoke arbitration to resolve the merits of the dispute

The court held that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in refusing to grant a mandatory direction for payment at the pre-arbitral stage