The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that even a party that has lost in arbitration can approach courts for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment settles conflicting views taken by various High Courts across the country.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a batch of civil appeals involving Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. and Haresh N. Sanghavi, among others. The core legal question before the Court was whether a party that does not have a favourable arbitral award can still file a petition seeking interim protection after the award has been passed
Different High Courts had taken opposing views. While the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts had denied such relief to unsuccessful parties, other courts like Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana had allowed it under certain circumstances.
This divergence led the Supreme Court to step in and clarify the legal position.
The bench examined the scope of Section 9, which allows courts to grant interim measures before, during, or after arbitration proceedings. It noted that the provision does not explicitly bar an unsuccessful party from seeking such relief.
The Court emphasized that denying access to Section 9 purely based on the outcome of arbitration would amount to restricting a statutory right.
“The rights of such a party cannot be curtailed merely on the apprehension of possible misuse of a statutory provision,” the bench observed.
However, the Court also cautioned that the standard for granting relief in such cases would be higher. It stressed that courts must carefully assess whether there is a genuine risk of irreparable harm or injustice.
“Undoubtedly, the threshold for grant of interim relief will be higher in the case of an unsuccessful party,” the bench said, adding that such relief should be granted only in “rare and compelling cases.”
The Supreme Court held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including one that has lost in arbitration, can invoke Section 9 at the post-award stage.
It ruled that earlier judgments of the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts denying this opportunity do not lay down the correct law. Instead, the Court approved the view taken by the Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts.
The appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11139/2020 was disposed of, while the remaining connected appeals were directed to be listed for further hearing.
Case Details:
Case Title: Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi & connected matter
Case Number: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29972/2015, 26876/2014, 11139/2020
Judge: Justice Manmohan and Justice Manoj Misra
Decision Date: April 24, 2026
