Section 9 petition treated as Section 17 application upon consensual appointment of a sole arbitrator.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief to restrain the Respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in a specific land parcel in Lucknow

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated January 7, 2025, which contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 8) designating New Delhi as the venue for arbitration

During the hearing, both parties mutually consented to refer their disputes to arbitration and agreed upon the appointment of a specific Sole Arbitrator

1. Whether the Court can dispense with the procedural requirements of Section 21 and Section 11 of the Act to refer the matter to a mutually agreed arbitrator

2. Whether interim protection should be granted to maintain the status quo of the subject property pending the Arbitrator's adjudication of the interim application

The Court primarily applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to grant interim measures of protection

It also relied on Section 17, regarding interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal

Section 12(2) concerning the mandatory disclosures required by an arbitrator

The Court further exercised its discretion to dispense with the notice requirement under Section 21 and the necessity of a separate petition under Section 11 to facilitate the timely commencement of proceedings

As the parties were ad idem regarding the appointment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Dr. S. Muralidhar as the Sole Arbitrator, the Court observed that the commencement of proceedings should not be delayed by procedural technicalities

Consequently, the Court converted the Section 9 petition into an application under Section 17 to be decided by the Arbitrator

Regarding the merits of interim relief, the Court noted the transaction value of Rs. 13.63 crores and directed the parties to maintain status quo to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the Arbitrator could hear the Section 17 application

The Court ensured institutional oversight by directing the arbitration to take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

It held that the Section 9 petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 by the Arbitrator

The Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding the title, possession, and character of the subject property until the Arbitrator decides on the Section 17 application

All rights and contentions, including jurisdictional objections, were left open for the Arbitrator's determination

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Registry to communicate the order to the Arbitrator within three days