Section 9 Interim Measures are Restricted to Parties and Subject Matter of the Arbitration Agreement.

The Petitioner (Society) entered into a Development Agreement (DA) in 2013 with the Respondent (Developer).

Due to defaults in statutory dues, corpus payments, and construction delays, the Society filed a Section 9 petition in 2017 seeking interim protection.

On December 14, 2017, the High Court issued an expansive injunction restraining the Developer and its partners from alienating assets or operating bank accounts across all their projects.

Over several years, 31 Interim Applications (IAs) were filed by third parties—including decree-holders from unrelated projects, flat allottees, and the developer's family members—seeking to intervene or lay claim to approximately ₹11 crores deposited in Court.

An Arbitral Tribunal was finally constituted in September 2024, and it has since passed an order under Section 17.

1. Whether a Section 9 Court should continue to exercise jurisdiction and maintain interim orders once an Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted and a Section 17 application has been filed

2. Whether third parties (decree-holders or allottees) who are not signatories to the arbitration agreement can intervene in Section 9 proceedings to satisfy claims unrelated to the subject matter of the arbitration

The Court applied Section 9 and Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing that Section 9 is a restorative measure for "parties" (defined under Section 2(1)(h)) intended to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration agreement.

It relied on the principle from Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja regarding the necessity of a manifest intent to arbitrate.

Regarding third-party intervention, the Court cited the "veritable party" doctrine established in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd., ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji, and Adavya Projects v. Vishal Structurals, which requires a non-signatory to show proximity, consent, or a de facto connection to the dispute/signatories to be roped into arbitration proceedings.

The Court reasoned that Section 9 is not a standalone equity jurisdiction but is strictly tied to the arbitration agreement.

Since an Arbitral Tribunal is now functional and a Section 17 order has been passed, Section 9(3) mandates that the Court shall not entertain such applications unless the Section 17 remedy is inefficacious.

The Court found no such inefficacy here.

Regarding the numerous IAs, the Court analyzed that the third-party applicants (decree-holders of other projects and family members) lacked privity to the DA and did not qualify as "veritable parties".

Consequently, using Section 9 as a general execution forum for unrelated debts was held to be coram non judice.

The Court determined that the 2017 restraint must now be reviewed by the Arbitrator to ensure it is commensurate only with the Society's specific claims (₹18.65 Crores in damages) rather than acting as a blanket freeze for the benefit of the world at large.

It held that the Section 17 jurisdiction must take over and directed the Arbitral Tribunal to assess, within three months, the amount necessary to secure the Society's interests; any surplus funds lying in Court must be released to the Developer.

All third-party intervention requests were rejected, though the Court granted them liberty to approach appropriate execution or civil forums, noting that time spent in these proceedings shall be excluded for limitation purposes.

The Court-appointed Commissioner was directed to hand over documents to the Registry, and the Developer was held to his undertaking to pay third-party decree-holders within 12 months of the release of surplus funds.