Listen to this post
After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?

Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with the winning party, the Court held that even an unsuccessful party may seek interim measures after an arbitral award, provided the case is rare, compelling, and demands judicial restraint. By rejecting the “fruits of the award” doctrine and reaffirming the plain statutory language of “any party,” the judgment restores Section 9 to its full amplitude while carefully safeguarding arbitral finality. This decision marks a pivotal shift in Indian arbitration law, balancing textual fidelity with commercial and procedural realism.

Introduction

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers courts to grant interim measures before, during, or after arbitral proceedings, but prior to award enforcement. Traditionally, courts have exercised post‑award powers to prevent frustration of the arbitral process in limited, well‑defined situations, such as:

  • securing the award amount pending enforcement,
  • preventing dissipation or alienation of assets by the award‑debtor,
  • preserving the subject‑matter of arbitration until execution proceedings commence, and
  • maintaining status quo where immediate enforcement steps are not yet practicable.

For years, however, these measures were largely perceived as remedies available only to the successful party (i.e. to an award‑holder). This assumption was decisively revisited by the Supreme Court in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi & Ors. 2026 INSC 415,when it answered a deceptively simple but deeply consequential question: Can a party which has lost in arbitration invoke Section 9 to seek interim relief after the award has been rendered?

The apex court answered in the affirmative, recalibrating Indian arbitration law by dismantling long‑standing judicial assumptions surrounding post‑award interim protection and restoring Section 9 to its full statutory amplitude.

Divergent Judicial Approaches: Two Competing Schools of Thought

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, Indian courts were sharply divided. These divisions can be understood as two doctrinal schools of thought, each built on distinct legal reasoning.

School of Thought I: Post‑Award Relief is Only for the Successful Party

The Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts adopted this restrictive approach based on the following legal contentions[1]:

  • Doctrine of Fruits of the Award: post‑award Section 9 relief exists only to secure the fruits of the arbitral award. A losing party, having obtained no enforceable benefit, has nothing to protect.
  • Finality of Arbitral Adjudication: once an award is passed, substantive rights stand crystallised. Permitting an unsuccessful party to seek interim protection was viewed as diluting the finality of arbitration.
  • Section 34 and Section 36 as Complete Remedies: according to this view, an unsuccessful party’s remedies lie exclusively in challenging the award under Section 34 and seeking a stay of enforcement under Section 36(2).
  • Risk of Abuse and Delaying Tactics: allowing losing parties to access Section 9 was seen as opening the floodgates to obstructionist litigation aimed at stalling execution.

School of Thought II: Section 9 Belongs to “Any Party”

In contrast, the Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts championed a broader reading of Section 9, grounded in statutory interpretation and equity:

  • Plain Meaning of the Statute:  Section 9 uses the expression “a party”, defined in Section 2(h) merely as a party to an arbitration agreement, without reference to success or failure.
  • Protection of Subject‑Matter, Not Merely the Award: interim measures are meant to prevent frustration of the arbitral process and its aftermath, including pending challenge proceedings.
  • Avoiding Remediless Situations: if an award is subsequently set aside or modified, denial of interim protection could render the challenge illusory.
  • Consistency with Legislative Intent: parliament consciously expanded Section 9 beyond the UNCITRAL Model Law to include the post‑award stage, signalling a wider protective remit.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court categorically held that:

  • Any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, may invoke Section 9 even at the post‑award stage.
  • Courts cannot read into the statute a distinction between successful and unsuccessful parties where none exists.
  • The “fruits of the award” doctrine is not a statutory limitation but a judicial construct that cannot override legislative text.

Detailed Analysis of the Court’s Findings

Literal and Textual Interpretation: The Supreme Court emphasised that statutory interpretation must begin and often end with the text. The phrase “a party” cannot be contextually modulated based on the outcome of arbitration without judicial legislation.

Section 9 vs Sections 34 and 36:

The Court clarified that:

  • Section 34 deals with validity of the award, and
  • Section 36 governs enforcement and stay.

Neither provision safeguards the subject‑matter of dispute or assets in the interregnum, making Section 9 indispensable.

Reliance on Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft

The Court expressly relied on Gayatri Balasamy[2], which recognised that courts can modify awards in limited cases. This destroyed the premise that an award faces an all‑or‑nothing fate and strengthened the need for interim protection pending challenge.

Non-binary Outcomes

A significant contribution of the judgement is its recognition that arbitration outcomes are often non‑binary. A party may succeed on liability but fail on quantum, or lose claims but win substantial counter‑claims. Branding such parties as “unsuccessful” for all purposes was held to be legally unsound.

When Might an Unsuccessful Party Need Post‑Award Interim Protection?

The Court gave practical illustrations, including:

  • where assets may be dissipated before a Section 34 challenge is decided,
  • where contractual rights revive upon setting aside of the award,
  • where counter‑claims exceed the awarded amount, and
  • where denial of protection would render the challenge a paper remedy.

A Higher Threshold for Losing Parties

Importantly, the Supreme Court imposed a higher threshold:

  • Post‑award Section 9 relief for unsuccessful parties must be granted only in rare and compelling cases.
  • Courts must exercise care, caution, and circumspection and rigorously assess:
    • irreparable harm,
    • balance of convenience, and
    • potential abuse.

This ensures that expanded access does not erode arbitral efficiency.

Key Takeaways and Points for Reflection

For practitioners invoking Section 9 at the post‑award stage, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the need for careful and restrained framing of interim relief applications. Courts are unlikely to entertain broad or speculative prayers; relief must be narrowly tailored and anchored to demonstrable prejudice. The emphasis should be on the risk of irreversibility, such as dissipation of assets or frustration of pending challenge proceedings, rather than mere inconvenience or tactical disadvantage.

Notwithstanding its doctrinal clarity, the judgment raises important questions for future consideration. A key concern is whether expanding the access to post‑award interim measures may encourage strategic Section 9 filings, particularly as a means of delaying enforcement. While the court has articulated a “higher threshold” for unsuccessful parties, its practical effectiveness in constraining judicial discretion remains to be tested.

There is also the broader institutional question of whether frequent resort to post‑award interim relief risks blurring the conceptual distinction between interim protection and a de facto stay of the award. How courts navigate this boundary, without undermining the finality and efficiency of arbitration will likely shape the next phase of judicial engagement with Section 9.

Conclusion

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has restored Section 9 to its statutory breadth while tempering it with restraint. The decision is a masterclass in balancing textual fidelity, commercial realism, and procedural discipline, marking 2026 as a pivotal year for Indian arbitration jurisprudence.

[1] This line of reasoning found its strongest articulation in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. MSEGC 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481 and its progeny, forming the backbone of the “no locus for losing parties” theory.

[2] Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986