On constituting the arbitral tribunal, the court converted the Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application.

The Petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking urgent interim protection against a communication dated 26 September 2026.

Respondent No. 1 had purportedly expelled Ajmal FC indefinitely and banned Petitioner No. 2 from football-related activities for two years; the Petitioners alleged that the measures were taken without notice or a hearing and contrary to the applicable DSA statutes and constitution

The Petitioners also stated that Ajmal FC had been omitted from the draft electoral list for DSA elections scheduled for 18 October 2026.

The Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration and consented to the Court appointing an arbitrator.

1. Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration and a sole arbitrator appointed by the Court, given the parties’ agreement and the prima facie existence of an arbitration clause

2. Whether the Petitioners’ request for interim measures should be considered by the Court under Section 9 or by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17

The Court considered Sections 9, 12(2) and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 9 provides for interim measures by a court; Section 17 enables an arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures; and Section 12(2) requires the arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure.

On finding a prima facie arbitration clause and disputes arising under it, and noting the parties’ consent to the appointment, the Court considered it appropriate to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Given the imminent elections and the parties’ agreement to arbitration and to a court-appointed arbitrator, the Court constituted the tribunal rather than determine the interim-measures request itself.

It left the Petitioners’ request to the Sole Arbitrator for consideration under Section 17, without expressing a view on the merits of the alleged exclusion or disciplinary action.

The Court also preserved the parties’ ability to raise objections, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the Arbitrator.

The pending Section 9 application was to be treated as an application under Section 17 for the Arbitrator’s consideration.

The Arbitrator was requested to decide the matter within 10 days; Respondent No. 1 was to receive the order and complete pleadings and be afforded an opportunity to appear, while Respondent No. 3 was not required to participate unless the Arbitrator considered its presence necessary.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.