Related Section 9 petitions become Section 17 applications before the constituted arbitral tribunal.

The petitions arose from disciplinary action taken against football clubs in the context of elections to the Delhi Soccer Association (DSA), with consequential effects on the clubs’ membership and electoral rights.

In an earlier order dated 7 October 2026, the Court had appointed a sole arbitrator in a matter arising from the same factual matrix and directed that the Section 9 application be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The DSA elections were scheduled for 18 October 2026.

The Court considered whether these connected disputes should also be referred to that arbitrator.

Whether the disputes in the connected petitions should be referred to the sole arbitrator already appointed in the related proceedings.

Whether the petitions under Section 9 should be treated as applications for interim measures under Section 17 before the arbitrator.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers a court to grant interim measures, while Section 17 provides for interim measures by an arbitral tribunal.

The earlier order in the related proceedings directed that, upon constitution of the tribunal, the Section 9 application be treated as a Section 17 application.

The Court also recorded that the arbitrator’s proceedings were subject to the disclosure requirements in Section 12(2) of the Act.

The Court found that the connected petitions concerned substantially the same controversy and related disciplinary action, membership and electoral rights as the proceedings in which the arbitrator had already been appointed.

Referring the disputes to that arbitrator would promote consistency in adjudication.

Given the approaching election, the Court asked the arbitrator to consider the interim-measures applications expeditiously, while leaving the merits and all parties’ rights and objections open.

The petitioners were directed to place the complete record before the arbitrator, who was requested to consider the interim applications expeditiously and endeavour to pass appropriate orders before the scheduled election.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and disposed of the petitions on those terms.