Section 9

Summary: The Bombay High Court, in Osterreichischer Lloyd v. Victore Ships, has held that a party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award in India does not lose its right to seek interim protective relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely by filing a petition for recognition and enforcement under Part II. Such relief remains available at least until the award is recognised as an enforceable decree under Section 49. This ruling strengthens the hand of award-creditors seeking to prevent dissipation of assets while enforcement is pending. It also reaffirms India’s pro-enforcement stance towards foreign awards. However, the judgement leaves open the more difficult question of whether Section 9 relief continues to be available even after the award is recognised as a decree, during the execution stage. High Courts remain divided on it and may require clarification from the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading Section 9 and Foreign Award Enforcement: Jurisdictional Question Settled, but Boundaries Still Uncertain
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.

Continue Reading After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?