Section 9 Petition may be treated as Section 17 Application upon consensual appointment of Sole Arbitrator.

The Petitioner, Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking urgent interim reliefs against the Respondent

The dispute arose from a Master Service Agreement dated 29.11.2024 concerning a hotel property in Udaipur, Rajasthan

The Petitioner sought to restrain the Respondent from disrupting hotel operations, interfering with ingress/egress, or creating third-party rights

During the hearing, both parties mutually agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration and requested that the Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 to be decided by a Sole Arbitrator

1. Whether the dispute arising from the Master Service Agreement should be referred to a Sole Arbitrator in view of the mutual consent of the parties

2. Whether the Section 9 petition for interim relief can be converted into a Section 17 application before the newly appointed Arbitrator

The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning interim measures by the Court.

Section 11 regarding the appointment of arbitrators (dispensing with a formal application by consent) and Section 17, which empowers an Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures

The Court also highlighted the principles of party autonomy in arbitration and the necessity of ensuring arbitral proceedings are not "unduly delayed"

The Court observed that since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral of the dispute to arbitration, it was unnecessary to adjudicate the Section 9 petition on its merits

To ensure procedural efficiency, the Court dispensed with the statutory requirements of a formal Section 21 notice and a separate Section 11 application for the appointment of an arbitrator

By treating the existing Section 9 petition as an application under Section 17, the Court shifted the jurisdiction for interim relief to the Sole Arbitrator, thereby preserving the parties' rights while adhering to the legislative intent of minimal judicial interference

It directed that the present Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, to be decided by the Arbitrator as expeditiously as possible

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and disposed of the petition with directions for the Arbitrator to furnish disclosures under Section 12(2) and follow the fee schedule under Schedule IV of the Act