In a significant ruling on arbitration procedure, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has clarified that even ad-interim orders passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be challenged in appeal. The court was dealing with appeals filed by the Visakhapatnam Port Authority against a status quo direction issued by a commercial court in Visakhapatnam
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of two separate commercial matters involving the Visakhapatnam Port Authority and private companies M/s Vishwanadh Avenues India Private Limited and M/s Vishwanadh Sports and Conventions Private Limited.
Both companies had approached the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam by filing petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 9 allows parties to seek interim protection from a court before or during arbitration proceedings.
On 19 December 2025, the commercial court passed an ad-interim order directing both sides to maintain status quo ante meaning the position as it existed on the date the petitions were filed until further hearing.
Aggrieved by this direction, the Port Authority moved the High Court by filing Commercial Court Appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act read with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Objection on Maintainability
When the appeals were presented, the High Court registry raised a basic objection: were these appeals even maintainable?
The objection stemmed from the fact that the Section 9 petitions were still pending before the commercial court, and the order under challenge was only an ad-interim arrangement, not a final decision.
The Port Authority’s counsel argued that Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act expressly allows appeals against any order “granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9,” and that the status quo direction clearly fell within this category.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court revives church’s tax exemption plea, sets aside rejection over 44-day audit delay
Court’s Observations
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam examined the statutory scheme closely.
The bench noted that Section 9 empowers courts to grant interim injunctions and other protective measures. It further observed that Section 37 is explicit in permitting appeals against orders granting such measures.
“The order dated 19.12.2025 is an order granting one of the measures under Section 9, namely an interim injunction,” the bench observed, adding that such an order “on the face of it” falls within Section 37(1)(b).
The judges also compared this provision with similar rules under the Code of Civil Procedure, where appeals are permitted even against ad-interim injunctions in appropriate circumstances.
Disagreement With Meghalaya High Court View
During the hearing, the respondents relied on a Meghalaya High Court judgment which had taken a narrower view, holding that Section 37 permits appeals only against final orders and not ad-interim ones.
Read also:- MP High Court Quashes SLSA SOP, Allows Legal Aid Defence Counsels to Continue Without Fresh Selection
The Andhra Pradesh High Court expressly disagreed.
“With respect, we are not in agreement with the view that Section 37(1)(b) contemplates appeals only against final orders,” the bench said. It held that an ad-interim order granting interim protection is also an appealable order if it squarely fits within Section 9.
Decision of the Court
After considering the statutory provisions and earlier precedents, the High Court concluded that the appeals were maintainable.
The office objection raised by the registry was overruled, and the court directed that the appeals be formally numbered. The bench clarified that its order would not prevent the commercial court from independently deciding the pending Section 9 petitions on merits.
The matter was listed for further hearing on a later date, with the question of interim stay to be considered thereafter.
Case Title:- The Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. M/s. Vishwanadh Avenues India Private Limited (and connected matter)
Case Numbers:- Commercial Court Appeal (SR) Nos. 53095 & 53096 of 2025
