Section 9 Petition may be treated as Section 17 Application upon mutual consent for arbitrator appointment.

The Petitioner, Devyani International Limited, entered into a Lease Deed dated 06.12.2024 and an Addendum dated 11.04.2025 with the Respondents for premises located in Vishakhapatnam

Disputes arose regarding the possession and operation of the business, leading the Petitioner to file a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Petitioner sought interim protection to restrain the Respondents from interfering with day-to-day business affairs, disrupting utilities, or dispossessing them without due process of law

During the hearing, both parties expressed mutual consent to refer the matter to arbitration as per Clause 13 of the Lease Deed

1. Whether the disputes arising from the Lease Deed and Addendum should be referred to a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication

2. Whether the present Section 9 petition for interim relief can be treated and adjudicated as an application under Section 17 before the appointed Arbitrator

The court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a party to seek interim measures from the court

It further invoked Section 17 of the Act, which empowers an arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures

The court also exercised its discretion to dispense with the procedural requirements of Section 21 (Notice of Invocation) and Section 11 (Appointment of Arbitrator) of the Act based on the mutual consent of the parties to expedite the commencement of arbitral proceedings

The court noted that Clause 13 of the Lease Deed stipulated the resolution of disputes via arbitration with the seat and venue in New Delhi

Since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the disputes should be settled through arbitration rather than through a merits-based adjudication of the Section 9 petition by the Court, the Court determined that the arbitral process should not be delayed

By mutual consent, the parties agreed to transform the Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application to be decided by the Arbitrator

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to appoint a Sole Arbitrator directly, bypassing the usual statutory notices and separate filings to ensure efficiency

It held that the Section 9 petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, and the Arbitrator was requested to decide upon it expeditiously

The Court dispensed with the Section 21 notice and Section 11 application requirements

All rights and contentions were kept open for the Arbitrator’s determination, and the petition was disposed of accordingly