Section 9 jurisdiction remains available for foreign awards until the award is recognized as a decree.

The Petitioner sought interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to secure an Award Amount of USD 269,105.08 granted via a foreign arbitral award dated March 23, 2020.

Parallelly, the Petitioner filed Enforcement Petition No. 403 of 2025 under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act.

The Respondent opposed the Section 9 petition, arguing that once enforcement proceedings under Part II of the Act are initiated, the court's jurisdiction under Section 9 ceases because "enforcement" and "execution" are rolled into a single composite proceeding for foreign awards.

1. Whether the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 9 of the Act remains available to a party after a petition for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award under Part II has been filed.

2. Whether the filing of an enforcement petition under Part II partakes the character of execution proceedings such that it bars the Section 9 remedy.

The Court applied Section 9(1) of the Act, which allows interim measures "before it is enforced in accordance with section 36".

It further applied the Proviso to Section 2(2), which extends Section 9 to international commercial arbitrations even if the seat is outside India.

The Court interpreted Section 49, which stipulates that a foreign award is deemed a decree only once the Court is "satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable".

It distinguished Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., noting it applied to domestic awards where execution follows the expiry of Section 34 timelines.

It also referenced Heligo Charters Private Limited v. Aircon Feibars FZE regarding the availability of interim measures for foreign awards.

The Court reasoned that the statutory schemes for domestic and foreign awards differ significantly regarding when an award becomes a "decree."

Under Section 36 (Part I), a domestic award automatically becomes a decree upon the expiry of the challenge period or refusal of stay.

Conversely, under Part II (foreign awards), Section 49 requires a "positive affirmation" and "validation" by the Court to declare the award enforceable.

The Court observed that while Section 9(1) refers to Section 36, the legislature intentionally omitted a similar temporal limit for Part II when amending Section 2(2) in 2015.

Consequently, the filing of a Part II petition is a plea for recognition; the award only translates into an "executable decree" once the Court is satisfied of its enforceability under Section 49.

Therefore, until the foreign award is formally recognized as a decree, Section 9 remains available to prevent the dissipation of assets.

The Court dismissed the jurisdictional objection and directed the Respondent to: (a) deposit the INR equivalent of USD 269,105.08 with the Registry within four weeks; (b) refrain from alienating assets pending such deposit; and (c) disclose all assets and liabilities on affidavit within two weeks.