Section 9 petition treated as Section 17 application upon consensual referral of disputes to arbitration.

The Petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking ad-interim ex-parte injunctions against the Respondents.

The dispute arose from a Letter of Engagement (22.04.2025) with Respondent No. 1 and a Secondment and Letter of Engagement (23.06.2025) with Respondent No. 2.

The Petitioners alleged that the Respondents violated contractual "non-solicitation" and "confidentiality" clauses by approaching and soliciting business from the Petitioners’ existing clients, specifically regarding the Jindal Mmamabula Energy Project.

The Respondents denied these allegations.

Both agreements contained identical dispute resolution clauses designating New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.

During the proceedings, both parties agreed to refer the matter to a Sole Arbitrator rather than adjudicating the Section 9 petition on its merits.

1. Whether the court should adjudicate the Section 9 petition for interim measures or refer the disputes to a Sole Arbitrator based on the parties' mutual consent?

2. Whether the statutory requirements of Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators) and Section 21 (commencement of arbitral proceedings) can be dispensed with by the Court when parties are ad idem?

3. Whether the pending prayer for interim relief under Section 9 can be transferred to the Arbitral Tribunal for consideration under Section 17?

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

Section 17 regarding interim measures ordered by an Arbitral Tribunal.

Section 11 and Section 21, noting that while these usually govern the initiation and appointment process, they may be dispensed with when parties jointly request the appointment of an arbitrator during Section 9 proceedings.

Section 12(2) regarding mandatory disclosures by the arbitrator to ensure independence and impartiality.

The Court observed that since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) to refer the disputes to arbitration, a full adjudication on the merits of the Section 9 petition was unnecessary.

In the interest of procedural efficiency and the parties' consent, the Court dispensed with the formal requirements of Section 11 and the invocation notice under Section 21.

The Court acknowledged the "peculiar facts" and "emergency" regarding the Petitioners’ allegations of client solicitation and breach of confidentiality.

Rather than granting or denying the injunction itself, the Court balanced the interests of both parties by treating the Section 9 petition as an application under Section 17.

This approach preserved the Petitioners' right to seek urgent relief while respecting the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the merits of the controversy.

The Court directed that the Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, requesting the learned Arbitrator to consider the application for interim relief as expeditiously as possible.

The Arbitrator was directed to furnish disclosures under Section 12(2), and the parties were ordered to share costs and fees equally.

All rights and contentions on the merits were left open for the Arbitral Tribunal.