Section 9 application for interim measures is maintainable until the complete satisfaction of the arbitral award.

The applicant, a contractor, obtained an arbitral award dated 26.05.2022 for ₹10,04,25,376 with 18% interest against the respondents.

The award became final and the applicant initiated execution proceedings (E.P. 31 of 2023) before the District Court, Chengalpet.

Despite the pending E.P., the applicant filed the instant application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the property described in the execution petition.

The 1st respondent was reported dead in 2022, and the execution proceedings had seen no effective progress since April 2023.

1. Whether an application for interim measures under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act remains maintainable after an award becomes "enforceable" but before it is fully "enforced".

2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary power to grant an injunction under Section 9 when the same relief can be sought before the executing court seized of the matter.

The Court applied Section 9(1)(ii)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows interim measures after the making of an award but "before it is enforced".

It relied on the Full Bench decision in *B.M. Insulation Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd.* (2026), which held that "enforced" denotes a completed act and signifies "until complete satisfaction of the award," thereby overruling the restrictive interpretation in *Gopuram Enterprises v. Integrated Finance Ltd.*

The Court further referenced Section 36 of the Act and Order XXI of the CPC, noting that an award must be executed as a decree of the court.

Regarding inherent powers, it cited *Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal* (AIR 1962 SC 527) to affirm that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions under Section 151 CPC even if the circumstances fall outside Order XXXIX.

Finally, it cited *Periyammal v. V. Rajamani* (2025) 9 SCC 568 regarding the mandatory six-month timeline for disposing of execution petitions.

The Court clarified that while a Section 9 application is "maintainable" until the award is fully satisfied, "entertainability" is a matter of judicial discretion.

The Judge reasoned that Section 9 should act as a "step-in-aid" and not a substitute for the execution process under Order XXI CPC.

The Court found that the executing court possesses ancillary and inherent powers to grant interim attachments or injunctions to prevent the alienation of property, even if such powers are not explicitly spelled out in Order XXI.

In this case, since an E.P. was already pending in Chengalpet (where the property is located), the Court determined it was more appropriate for the applicant to seek interim relief there to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the Court criticized the "tardy pace" of the lower court, noting it had failed to follow the Supreme Court's mandate on timely execution.

It directed the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, to conclude E.P. No. 31 of 2023 by 30.06.2026.

The Court further ordered the Registrar General to call for an explanation from the presiding officer for the delay and a comprehensive report from the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, regarding all pending execution petitions involving arbitral awards in the district.

The matter was posted for reporting compliance on 01.07.2026.