Section 9 Petition Converted to Section 17 Application Following Consent Reference of Dispute to Arbitration

The Petitioner, Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to stay the implementation of a letter dated 26.02.2026 and an order dated 17.03.2026.

The Petitioner sought to restrain the Respondent, Sports Authority of India (SAI), from giving effect to these orders and requested permission to participate in ongoing and future tenders.

During the proceedings, both parties agreed (ad idem) to refer their disputes to a Sole Arbitrator as per Clause 25 of their General Conditions of Contract dated 11.09.2024.

1. Whether the disputes between the parties should be referred to arbitration in view of the arbitration agreement and the mutual consent of the parties.

2. Whether the requirement of filing a formal petition under Section 11 of the Act can be dispensed with if Section 21 notice requirements are met.

3. Whether interim protection should be granted to the Petitioner pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the Court.

Section 21 regarding the commencement of arbitral proceedings upon notice.

Principle of party autonomy in arbitration as reflected in the enforcement of Clause 25 (Resolution of Disputes) of the General Conditions of Contract, which mandates arbitration for unresolved disputes arising from the contract.

The Fourth Schedule of the Act to determine the fee structure for the arbitrator.

The Court noted that since both parties were in agreement to arbitrate rather than adjudicate the Section 9 petition on its merits, there was no legal impediment to referring the matter to a Sole Arbitrator.

The Court found that because the Petitioner had already served a Section 21 notice on 06.04.2026, the procedural necessity of a separate Section 11 petition was redundant and could be dispensed with for judicial efficiency.

To balance the interests of the parties during the transition to arbitration, the Court directed that the Section 9 petition be converted into a Section 17 application (interim measures by the tribunal) to be decided by the appointed arbitrator.

Regarding the immediate grievance, the Court allowed a limited interim measure by permitting the Petitioner to participate in tenders, while keeping the final outcome of such participation contingent upon the arbitration's result.

The Court held that the Section 9 petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 before the learned Arbitrator, who is requested to decide it within six weeks.

As an interim measure, the Petitioner is permitted to participate in the Respondent’s tenders, subject to the final award.

The Arbitrator’s fees are to be shared equally and fixed per the Fourth Schedule of the Act.