Petition Under Section 9 May Be Treated as Section 17 Application Upon Mutual Consent for Arbitration

The Petitioner, Jubilant Foodworks Limited, entered into an undated Lease Deed (commencing 01.11.2022) and a Supplementary Lease Deed dated 03.04.2023 with the Respondent for premises in Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, to operate a "Domino's Pizza" outlet

A dispute arose following a Reply-Cum-Termination Notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by the Respondent

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause via a Section 21 notice on 25.03.2026, which the Respondent declined on 01.04.2026

The Petitioner subsequently filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking interim injunctions against termination of the lease, forced eviction, and disconnection of essential utility services

1. Whether the court should grant ad-interim protection under Section 9 or refer the dispute and the application for interim relief to an Arbitrator by mutual consent of the parties

2. Whether the statutory requirement of a separate Section 11 application for the appointment of an arbitrator can be dispensed with when parties are ad idem on the appointment

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for interim measures by the Court

Section 17, which empowers an Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures

Inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Principle of party autonomy in arbitration, allowing for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and the conversion of a Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application when parties are ad idem

The court noted that both parties, after some arguments, reached a consensus (ad idem) to refer their disputes to arbitration as per Clause 9(b) of their Agreement rather than adjudicating the Section 9 petition on its merits

To prevent undue delay in the commencement of proceedings, the court determined that the Section 9 petition should be converted and treated as an application under Section 17 to be decided by the Arbitrator

Since the parties mutually agreed to the arbitration and the necessity of a Sole Arbitrator, the court dispensed with the formal requirement of a Section 11 application for appointment, citing the need for expediency

It held that the present Section 9 petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, to be decided expeditiously by the learned Arbitrator upon entering reference

The Arbitrator was directed to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) within one week

The petition and pending applications were disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open for the tribunal's consideration