Section 9 relief was denied because no Section 21 notice had initiated arbitration.

The applicant and respondent entered into an agreement dated 21 July 2023 under which the applicant supplied film-projection equipment to the respondent’s theatre, with a five-year lock-in period; the applicant also acted as the respondent’s sole advertising concessionaire.

The applicant alleged that the respondent had removed its equipment and installed equipment from a third party, and sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to enter the respondent’s premises, seize the equipment, and deliver it to the applicant pending arbitration.

The respondent disputed the applicant’s ownership, contending that it had paid the full consideration for the equipment, and raised separate disputes concerning film-content supply and advertising revenue.

Although the applicant had issued a notice in September 2025 indicating its intention to seek relief under Section 9, it filed this application in March 2026; the Court noted that no notice under Section 21 had been issued by the date of decision.

Whether the applicant had established grounds for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to seize and take custody of the disputed equipment as an interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether the applicant’s failure to issue a notice under Section 21, despite the delay between its earlier notice and filing the Section 9 application, warranted dismissal of the application.

The Court considered Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which permits a court to grant interim measures of protection in aid of arbitration, and referred to Section 9(2), under which arbitral proceedings are to be commenced within 90 days of an interim order, or within such further time as the court may determine.

It also considered Section 21, concerning commencement of arbitral proceedings by a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

The Court recognised that the parties’ rights in the equipment were disputed: the applicant relied on the agreement’s five-year lock-in and asserted continuing ownership, while the respondent claimed that payment of the full equipment value transferred the rights to it; disputes over advertising revenue also remained.

The Court further noted that, although the applicant had indicated an intention to invoke Section 9 in September 2025 and had threatened such an application by October 2025, it did not file the application until March 2026 and had still not issued a Section 21 notice.

In light of these circumstances, the Court found no merit in granting the requested interim relief.

There was no order as to costs.