Section 9 petitions converted to Section 17 applications for adjudication by a pending arbitral tribunal.

The Petitioner filed three petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking ad interim relief, including the release of specific monetary amounts (Rs. 2,12,50,534 and Rs. 2,70,31,480) and a stay on Demand Notices issued by the Respondent for "additional license fee" and "additional security deposit"

Similar disputes regarding license fees and security deposits between the same parties were already pending before a Sole Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.), appointed in a previous matter

The Petitioner approached the Court due to an apprehension that the Respondent would make deductions that would render the current petitions otiose

The Respondent suggested that these new disputes be referred to the same arbitrator and treated as applications under Section 17 of the Act

1. Whether the Court should grant interim protection under Section 9 or refer the parties to the existing Arbitral Tribunal considering the overlap in subject matter

2. Whether the Section 9 petitions can be converted into Section 17 applications for adjudication by the Sole Arbitrator

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

Section 17, which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures

Section 12(2) of the Act regarding arbitrator disclosures, noting that such disclosure was dispensed with as the arbitrator was already seized of related proceedings between the parties

Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules

The Court observed that since a Sole Arbitrator was already "in seisin" of disputes involving similar issues (enhanced license fees and security deposits) between the same parties, it was "reasonable" to refer the present disputes to the same tribunal

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the interim relief, the Court accepted the Respondent’s suggestion to treat the petitions as Section 17 applications

This approach ensures consistency in adjudication and respects the priority of the arbitral process.

The Court emphasized that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, thereby leaving all legal contentions and jurisdictional objections open for the Arbitrator’s determination

The Court directed that the Section 9 petitions be treated as applications under Section 17 of the Act, and ordered the Registry to transmit the records to the learned Sole Arbitrator for appropriate orders in accordance with law

All rights, contentions, and jurisdictional objections of the parties were kept open for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide