Section 9 permits post-award interim protection to preserve the award pending enforcement.

The dispute arose from a Joint Development Agreement dated 23 April 2011.

In an award dated 18 September 2025, the sole arbitrator held that the deceased owner’s legal representatives were collectively entitled to 42% of the property’s total built-up area.

The award directed the developer to hand over a balance of 46,447 sq. ft.; if that area was unavailable, the developer was to pay its stated value of ₹25,54,58,500.

After the award, the developer stated in a notice dated 16 October 2025 that most of its constructed-area share had been conveyed, that the remaining area was insufficient, and that it would pay money instead of handing over apartments.

The beneficiaries subsequently sought relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging that further sales would impede enforcement of the award.

The Commercial Court restrained alienation or encumbrance of the identified flats for three months or until an execution petition was filed; if filed within that period, the restraint would continue until conclusion of execution proceedings.

The developer appealed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

1. Whether the respondents had established a case for interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

2. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in restraining the appellant from alienating or encumbering the flats pending steps to enforce the award

Section 9(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers a court to grant interim measures before or during arbitration, or after an award but before its enforcement under Section 36, including measures to preserve property that is the subject matter of the dispute and protect the parties’ interests.

Under Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited, (2022) 20 SCC 178, the court considers whether the applicant has a good prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favours relief, and whether the application was made with reasonable expedition.

Post-award protection under Section 9 may preserve the efficacy of an award pending enforcement; it does not require that an execution petition already be on foot.

The award had crystallised the beneficiaries’ entitlement, while the developer’s post-award notice and subsequent sales provided a concrete basis—not merely speculation—for apprehending further alienation.

The notice did not identify the flats sold or those remaining available, and the developer had not supplied sufficient particulars about the status of the flats in question.

Because the award quantified the entitlement in built-up area without identifying specific flats, limiting protection to particular beneficiaries’ individual shares was impracticable and could make the relief ineffective.

The restraint was temporary and tied to the filing of execution proceedings within three months, appropriately balancing preservation of the award’s subject matter against the developer’s interests.

Neither the absence of an execution petition nor the fact that a related challenge to the award was pending defeated the need for interim protection.

The court distinguished Rakesh Kumar Jindal v. Anoop Kumar Jindal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9252, because the respondents sought preservation of rights already determined by the award, not adjudication of a fresh claim.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order restraining alienation or encumbrance of the identified flats on the terms set by the Commercial Court.