Section 9 Petition may be treated as Section 17 Application upon consensual reference to arbitration.

The Petitioner, L T Finance Ltd, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim reliefs against the Respondents, including the deposit of ₹2,03,41,003.55, the appointment of a Court Receiver for a mortgaged property in Kolkata, and an injunction against creating third-party rights

The dispute arose from a Loan Against Property Agreement dated 28.02.2018

During the proceedings, both parties consented to refer the matter to arbitration rather than adjudicating the Section 9 petition on merits

An interim protection order had previously been passed on 09.03.2026

1. Whether the Court can refer the parties to arbitration and appoint a Sole Arbitrator based on mutual consent despite the pendency of a Section 9 petition

2. Whether the Section 9 petition can be converted and treated as an application for interim measures under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal

3. Whether the court may waive the requirement of a Section 21 notice and a formal Section 11 petition when parties are ad idem on the appointment of an arbitrator

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for interim measures by the Court

Arbitration Clause (Article 12) of the Loan Agreement, which mandates arbitration for disputes and allows for interim relief under Section 9

The court exercised its discretionary power to expedite proceedings by waiving the statutory requirement of a notice under Section 21 (commencement of proceedings) and the filing of a formal petition under Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators) for the sake of judicial economy

The Court observed that since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral of disputes to arbitration and the appointment of a specific arbitrator, there was no legal impediment to granting such an order within the Section 9 proceedings

To ensure the subject matter remained protected, the Court reasoned that the Section 9 petition should be treated as a Section 17 application to be decided by the arbitrator

The Court emphasized that the underlying value of the dispute (approx. ₹2.5 Crores) necessitated an expeditious resolution, justifying the waiver of procedural formalities under Sections 21 and 11 to avoid undue delay

It directed that the present Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 before the Arbitrator

The interim order dated 09.03.2026 was ordered to continue until the Arbitrator passes an order on the Section 17 application

The Registry was directed to notify the Arbitrator, and the Arbitrator was requested to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) within one week

The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions left open for the Arbitrator’s merit-based decision