Unsuccessful parties in arbitral proceedings may maintain Section 9 petitions for interim measures post-award.

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals arising out of conflicting High Court decisions regarding the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The primary case originated from a Bombay High Court order which dismissed an appeal under Section 37, following the precedent in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd., which held that an unsuccessful party in arbitral proceedings cannot maintain a Section 9 petition post-award

The Appellants challenged this restrictive interpretation, arguing that if an award is set aside under Section 34, the parties are revived to their original contractual positions, necessitating interim protection for the subject matter of the dispute

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which permits "a party" to seek interim measures of protection before, during, or after the making of an arbitral award but before its enforcement

The definition of "party" under Section 2(h) as "a party to an arbitration agreement"

The principle of literal interpretation, holding that if the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it without judicial embellishment

The Constitution Bench ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., which clarified that Courts have the power to modify or sever parts of an award under Section 34

The Court reasoned that the term "a party" used in Section 9 is defined by Section 2(h) and carries no qualification such as "successful" or "unsuccessful"

It rejected the "fruits of the award" theory established in Dirk India, noting that the legislative departure from the UNCITRAL Model Law—which lacks a post-award stage for interim relief—indicates a deliberate intent to provide broad protection until the judicial process culminates

The Court emphasized that Section 9 and Section 36(2) operate in distinct spheres: Section 36 deals with the stay of enforcement, while Section 9 protects the "subject matter" or "amount in dispute," which is broader than merely the "fruits" of a win

It further noted that since awards can now be modified or severed under Section 34, a losing party might still have valid claims or protection needs that would be rendered illusory if Section 9 were barred

The Court clarified that while the right exists, the threshold for granting relief to an unsuccessful party remains higher, necessitating the satisfaction of traditional tests: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

It overruled the restrictive views of the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts, and upheld the broader interpretations of the Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts. The Court cautioned that while maintainable, judges must exercise "care, caution and circumspection" when dealing with applications from unsuccessful parties. One appeal was disposed of, while the others were listed for hearing on merits.