The following article has been written by Ishani Samajpati, pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons) under the University of Calcutta. This article seeks to provide a conceptual clarification regarding the provisions of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 through a discussion of various facets of the said provision.
Table of Contents
Arbitration, as a method of alternative dispute resolution, has gradually become immensely popular in India where the Courts are burdened with a huge number of pending cases making the process of litigation expensive, time-consuming and exhaustive. However, the contracting parties may also need an interim relief and protection by the Court before, after or during the procedure of arbitration or just after passing the arbitral award.
Synopsis of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with interim relief in an arbitration proceeding. It entitles any party to obtain an interim relief at three stages –
- Before the commencement of the arbitration proceedings
- During the course of arbitration proceedings
- After when the arbitral award is given but before its enforcement
A considerable time may elapse between the time of invoking the arbitration and the appointment of an arbitral tribunal by the Court. During the time in between, if an urgent relief is sought and there is hardly any time to wait, Section 9 specifically provides before that “arbitral proceedings”, an individual is also entitled to move the Court if he/she feels the urgency. Therefore, the entire purpose of Section 9 is to provide relief to the parties when the arbitral tribunal is not even in existence.
Though arbitration is supposed to be undertaken by the arbitral tribunal alone, the Act recognises the fact that the rights of the parties should not be frustrated. Hence, in a period when the tribunal may not be in existence, the parties may approach the Court for relief.
Similarly, at any time after the arbitral award and before its enforcement as provided by Section 36, one has the right to go to the Court. For instance, if an award has been passed by an arbitral tribunal, technically it is functus officio (not anymore functional or has any official or legal authority). But right after the passing of the award and before the enforcement, one has to wait effectively for a period of 90 days under Section 34 to set aside the arbitral award. But due to some urgency, one may require some urgent relief and may approach the Court under the provisions of Section 9.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 9 were added by the 2015 amendment of the Act providing certain bars on approaching the Court for interim relief once the arbitration proceedings have been started.
- An arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is temporary in nature. It will only be constituted after the concerned parties take the effort to constitute after the arousal of any dispute.
- The function of the arbitral tribunal ends once it renders an award. Here the concept of functus officio comes into being.
- The period of the existence of any arbitral tribunal is from the time of its constitution to when it has passed an award.
Interim measures in arbitral proceedings – Section 9
Interim measures in arbitration vary according to the facts, situations, circumstances and commands of huge importance. As discussed earlier, Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides provisions for interim measures in arbitration.
Section 9 is one of the most important provisions which is invoked majorly by the Courts of law in India under the scope and ambit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The details of the provisions under Section 9 are provided below:
Section 9(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 9(1) lays down the conditions because of which one can approach the Court for interim measures before, after or during the procedure of arbitration or just after passing the arbitral award.
Section 9(1) provides a complete list of situations and conditions when a person may approach the Court for interim measures as well as the protections offered. Section 9(1) confers the Court or the adjudicating authority with a number of powers to provide interim measures of protection according to its own discretion. Section 9 is further divided into two broad categories under Section 9(1)(i) and Section 9(1)(ii).
According to Section 9(1)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an individual may file an application to appoint a guardian for a minor or for a person of unsound mind for arbitral proceedings.
Section 9(1)(ii) provides a broad category of power to grant interim measures of protection to the Court or the adjudicating authority for the following:
- According to Section 9(1)(ii)(a), the Court may provide interim relief to preserve, interim custody or sale of goods, being the subject matter of the arbitration agreement under Section 7.
- Under 9(1)(ii)(b), the Court may grant an interim relief to secure the amount in dispute.
- In any property related disputes, subject to arbitration proceedings, under 9(1)(ii)(c), the Court may grant interim relief through the authorisation of any person entering the land or the building in possession to either of the party or to take samples, for making any observations or any experiments whichever is necessary to obtain full information or total evidence.
- The Court may also grant the relief of interim injunction under Section 9(1)(ii)(d) provided that the conditions of establishment of prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour and irreparable damages are maintained. Under this clause, the Court may also appoint a receiver, a court officer appointed by the Court to supervise disputed properties or things in question.
- Apart from these, Section 9(1)(ii)(e) provides the Court discretionary power to provide any interim protections other than the ones listed above If the court deems it fit, just and convenient. In this regard, the Court has the same power to give orders like any proceedings before it.
Section 9(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was incorporated after the 2015 amendment. Under section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is a statutory requirement to invoke arbitration and move the Court for the appointment of an arbitrator or if it is to be done through mutual consent, the parties have to take the necessary steps through mutual consent within a period of 90 days.
Under Section 9(2), the period of 90 days is the basic benchmark in terms of invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 9(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also incorporated after the 2015 amendment.
Under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is a clear dictum against the Court entertaining an application under Section 9 once the Tribunal has been constituted unless there are some really exceptional circumstances which may justify a recourse to the Court even when an Arbitral Tribunal is in session.
The general rule under Section 9(3) is that if there is an arbitral tribunal in existence, one cannot resort to a Section 9 application in the Court of Law.
Through the 2015 Amendment Act, the powers of the court to grant interim reliefs after the Constitution of the arbitral tribunal has been curtailed. Section 9(3) of the Act, as inserted by the 2015 Amendment Act states that an application under Section 9 shall not be entertained by the Court unless the remedy sought from an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 is ‘inefficacious’.
The Supreme Court observed that the term “entertain” under Section 9 (3) of the Act means consideration of the issues raised by the applicant. The Apex Court held that the court entertains a matter when it takes it up for consideration, and such consideration may continue before pronouncing the judgment.
Section 9 (3) would not be applicable once an application under Section 9(1) has been “entertained” the main objective of interim relief applications under Section 9 is urgent disposal and ensuring that the arbitration proceedings do not become infructuous.
A comparative discussion of Section 9 with Section 36 and Section 37 after amendment
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states the method of enforcement of an arbitral award. However, under Section 9 one can approach the court just before the enforcement of the arbitral award under Section 36.
On the other hand, if the arbitral award is enforced under Section 36 one cannot approach the court to file an application under Section 9.
Under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act, one can appeal against an order if the Court refuses to grant any interim relief or the granted interim relief is not suitable under Section 9.
A comparative analysis of Section 9 prior to and after the 2015 amendment
Prior to the 2015 Amendment of the Arbitration Act, even when an arbitral tribunal was in function or in existence, there was no bar from making an application under Section 9 before the court. Prior to the 2015 amendment to the Act, the power of the Court under Section 9 was much wider than the power of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17. There were also some controversies with regard to the enforceability of Section 17.
Post the 2015 amendment, these discrepancies in the Act have been rectified to a large extent. Therefore, now the essence of the Act is that once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, ideally the court should refrain from entertaining an application under Section 9 and leave it to the Tribunal to decide any interim issues in an application under Section 17. This, to a certain extent, becomes clear from the newly added Sections 9(2) and 9(3) respectively in 2015.
The concerned Act was also further amended in 2019, however, there were no changes incorporated in Section 9.
Judicial interpretations of Section 9 post and prior to the 2015 amendment
Whenever specific facts of any case are applied to any specific provision of an Act, the ambit and applicability of that provision is interpreted differently. Different facets of Section 9 have been interpreted in different ways by the Court regarding how Section 9 basically functions.
Mentioned below are the relevant case laws in relation to how Section 9 has been interpreted in varying factual contexts both prior to and after the 2015 amendment.
- In Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999), the question of the jurisdiction of the ‘court’ to pass interim orders prior to the commencement of arbitral proceedings and before the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Act was considered by a Supreme Court Division Bench. This Court, after due consideration of the scope of the said provision, decided the court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 before the initiation of arbitration proceedings.
- In the case of Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja (2004), the Supreme Court held that the commencement of arbitral proceedings is independent of the interim relief under Section 9 being allowed or denied.
- In the case of S.B.P. and Co. v. Patel Engineering (2005), the Supreme Court held that if a dispute involved was not covered by the arbitration clause or the Court which was approached had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, that Court should decide whether it has jurisdiction and whether there has been a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute raised has been covered by it.
Further, it was held that if it is found that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction, it should continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.
- In Companies Act v. Mr. Ashok Khurana (2014), the Bombay High Court held that the parties who are not parties to an arbitration agreement can still file an application under Section 9 if they are likely to be affected by the reliefs claimed therein.
- The Delhi High Court, in the case of Ashwani Minda and M/s Jay Ushin Limited v. M/s U-Shin Limited and M/s Minebea Mitsumi Incorporated (2020) while deciding upon the scope of applicability of Section 9 in connection with the foreign seated arbitrations, held that an application under Section 9 would not be maintainable after the constitution of an arbitral tribunal in a foreign seated arbitration if an efficacious remedy is available before the arbitral tribunal.
- In the case of New Morning Star Travels v. Volkswagen Finance (2020), the Delhi High Court held that orders relating to an application under Section 9 cannot be passed ex-parte.
- In a recent case of M/S. Satyen Construction v. the State of West Bengal & Others (2022), a single bench judge of Calcutta High Court dismissed and rejected a prayer for withdrawal on the ground that the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be extended to the enforcement of an arbitral award.
Subject matter of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted on 16th August, 1996 with an objective to provide a comprehensive resolution of disputes through the process of arbitration and conciliation. The Act was modelled under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration which issued regulations to the countries for uniformity of international commercial arbitration and UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, 1980.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also modelled on Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (the “Model Law”) which states about interim protection.
However, Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that a party may approach the Court only before or during the arbitration procedure and may request interim protections. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 further allows an individual to approach the Court even after the arbitral award making the scope of Section 9 much wider. The 2015 amendment, though, puts some restrictions as discussed.
Similarity with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
An application under Section 9 Is to some extent similar to an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in a suit. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 is only applicable for interim relief. It is intended as an aide to the ultimate conclusion of the proceedings in the main matter. In much the same way an application under Section 9 can never be a substitute for the arbitration proceedings themselves.
In the case of Minochar @ Minoo Aspandyar Irani v. Deenyar Sheriar Jehani (2014), the Bombay High Court held that a party who does not ultimately intend to refer the dispute to arbitration cannot be permitted to seek interim relief. Interim relief is not a replacement for the entire arbitration proceedings.
However, this case was prior to the 2015 amendment of the Act. With the addition of Section 9(2) in 2015, it is now mandatory to initiate arbitration proceedings within 90 days or any time period as decided by the Court.
Applicability of Code of Civil Procedures, 1908
Even though the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have been expressly made not applicable to arbitration proceedings. The same spirit has been echoed in many judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
For instance, in the case of M/S. Mysore Managanese Co (P) Ltd v. M/S. Prakash Natural Resources (2016), the Karnataka High Court held that “the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are also made applicable to the arbitration proceedings.”
The Court under Section 9 has a wide range of jurisdiction in terms of judicial precedent. To grant relief under Section 9, the law still follows the course of the fundamental spirit of parameters of the interim relief measures under the CPC i.e.,
- prima facie case,
- balance of convenience and inconvenience and
- irreparable injury are elements which are still required to be at least averted and fundamentally established before one is entitled to relief under section 9
Similar is the case with certain other parameters such as Order XXXVII Rule 5 which may not be applicable to Section 9 proceedings but the fundamental spirit underlying it would still have to be taken into account when dealing with an application under Section 9.
Again if the orders given in an application under Section 9 is not complied with necessary consequences in terms of contempt of court will follow.
Scope of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has a wide scope in respect of interim measures in arbitration proceedings. This, in fact, has been reinstated by various judgements.
The existence of a valid arbitration agreement is one of the contentions often raised by respondents for applications relating to the interim relief under Section 9 of the Act filed before the commencement of arbitral proceedings. In such proceedings, the maintainability of the proceedings is often challenged based on this.
The sole purpose of an application under Section 9 is to grant interim relief and to protect the rights. The application does not affect the proceedings of the arbitration.
The 3-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a December 2020 judgement in the case of Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation held that the purpose of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is solely for providing interim relief and even though the Section has the protection to affect the rights of the parties, it does not affect the conduct of the arbitration. In 2021, the Supreme Court in the order of Pravin Electricals (P) Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra and Engg. (P) Ltd. confirmed this in relation to Section 9.
The Vidya Droila judgement has become a landmark judgement in determining the scope of Section 9 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Leighton India Contractors Private Ltd. vs. DLF Ltd. (2020), the Delhi High Court has held that the scope of Section 9 of the Act is very broad and does not curtail the powers of the court.
Injunction under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
No injunction under Section 9 can be granted if fraud, irretrievable injury or special equities are not proved in case of injunction against the invocation of bank guarantees, as held by Delhi High Court in the case of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Limited (2020).
Entertaining an application
In 2021, in the landmark case of ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. (2021), the Supreme Court discussed whether, after the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, the Courts have the power to entertain an application under Section 9(1) of the Act and the true meaning and purpose of the word ‘entertain’ in Section 9(3) of the said Act.
The Supreme Court held that since the Court had already entertained the application, there was no point in relegating the parties to the tribunal. It was further declared that if the Court entertains the application before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the Court may direct the parties to approach before the arbitral tribunal and may grant a limited order of interim protection.
Applicability of Section 9 outside India and in International Commercial Arbitration
The 2015 Amendment Act has introduced the possibility of availing interim measures from Indian courts in a foreign seated international commercial arbitration. A party in a foreign seated international commercial arbitration governed by a foreign law may approach the courts in India for interim relief under Section 9.
The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have decided on the question of applicability of Section 9 in case of the international commercial arbitrations held outside India
The wording of Section 9 does not explicitly provide whether an application under Section 9 is also applicable in cases of international commercial arbitration outside India. However, there have been several judgements from which it can be inferred.
In 2002, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S. A. and Anr (2002) decided that Section 9 of this Act also applies to international arbitrations and arbitrations outside India. This judgment was however overruled by the Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. in 2012 which stated that no application for an interim injunction under Section 9 would be maintainable in India, if it is an international commercial arbitration with a seat outside India.
Court where an application under Section 9 is maintainable in foreign arbitration
Pursuant to an award being passed, an application under Section 9 may be filed even if the place or seat of arbitration is outside India.
In such cases, the court having jurisdiction over the arbitral award’s subject matter may be considered the competent court.
Maintainability of the application in case of foreign seated arbitration
If two companies incorporated in India with an arbitration forum outside India choose a neutral forum for arbitration outside India and the foreign law governing the arbitration, their application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act would be maintainable in the courts of India.
The Supreme Court dealt with the abovementioned issue in its judgment of Pasl Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd. (2021), also known as ‘Pasl Wind case’ and held the same.
In Ashwani Minda and Anr. v. U-Shin Ltd. and Anr. (2020), the Delhi High Court held that an international arbitration agreeing to the rules of the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association with a seat in Japan and subsequently filing an application under Section 9 for interim relief in India would not be maintainable.
Maintainability of the application after the arbitral award in foreign seated arbitration
Interim protection under Section 9 of the Act is maintainable in a foreign seated arbitration even after passing of the arbitral award unless expressly excluded by the parties in the Arbitration Agreement.
Based on this principle, the Calcutta High Court held that in Medima Llc v. Balasore Alloys Limited (2021) directed to seek interim measures against the respondent, even if the arbitration award and the seat was in London.
Section 9 vis – à – vis Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
While Section 9 deals with the power of the Court to grant interim protections, Section 17 lays down the power of the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures. The two Sections are identically worded. Hence, the difference between the scope of Section 9 and Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been quite confusing and various Courts have discussed the fine line of difference between the two sections.
In the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd v. Nepc India Ltd. (1999), the Supreme Court of India for the very first time delineated the distinction between Section 9 and Section 17. It was held that Section 17 gives the arbitral tribunal to pass those orders which cannot be enforced by the Court. Hence, Section 9 admittedly gives the Court power to pass interim orders during the arbitration proceedings.
Wide scope of both the sections
After the 2015 Amendment, both the scope of Section 9 and Section 17 have considerably been widened and under the Sections, both the Arbitral Tribunal and the Court have expressly been conferred the same power. It was further held that an order of the Tribunal under Section 17 and an order of the Court under Section 9 is also enforceable in the same manner under the Civil Procedure Code.
The Calcutta High Court held the same in the 2016 case of Sri Tufan Chatterjee v. Sri Rangan Dhar (2016)
Efficacious remedy not available
The application under Section 9 in the Court is only maintainable when one cannot avail an efficacious remedy under Section 17 in the arbitral tribunal. If the applicant is deprived of an efficacious remedy even due to external factors, the individual is entitled to approach the Court for interim relief under Section 9.
In Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019), the tribunal constituted could not function because of the rescual of one of the co-arbitrators. The Delhi High Court held that the efficacious remedy under Section 17 was not available and it was necessary to entertain the application under Section 9.
Identically worded Sections
Both Section 9 and Section 17 are identically worded. The only difference between the Sections to a layman is that while Section 9 deals with filing an application for interim relief in court, it is the arbitral tribunal under Section 17
The difference between Section 9 and Section 17 was broadly discussed by the Delhi High Court in the 2020 case of Avantha Holdings Limited v. Vistra ITCL India Limited (2020). In the case, it was declared that “A reading of Section 9, and Section 17, of the 1996 Act, reveals that they are identically worded”. It warned any Court should exercise powers granted by Section 9 only where the matter cannot await the constitution of the tribunal. It was further warned that the Court “has to be acutely conscious” of the power vested in the arbitral tribunal by Section 17 since both are identically worded to Section 9.
When to file an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
In the recent landmark case of ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. (2021), the Supreme Court of India delineated the scope of Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17 of the Act. It was decided that under Section 9(3), once an arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain any application for an interim measure under Section 9(1) unless the Court decides that the tribunal may not render efficacious remedy under Section 17.
Competent courts to entertain the application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 2(1)(e) provides the jurisdiction of the competent courts to entertain an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to Section 2(1)(e)(i), in the case of arbitration which is not an international commercial arbitration, the original jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court in a district and the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court have the jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 9. However, any Civil Court other than the principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the concerned application.
Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Act provides jurisdiction in the case of international commercial arbitration. In this situation, the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application under the Act.
Relevant case laws regarding jurisdiction of Courts under Section 9
However, in the 2012 judgement, a constitution bench of the Supreme court in the case of Bharat Aluminum Company v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012) held that Indian Courts can no longer be able to set aside arbitral awards or grant interim measures in case of foreign seated arbitrations which overruled the 2002 judgement of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S. A. and Anr. (2002) which stated that Part I of the Act will also apply also to international commercial arbitrations which take place out of India unless the agreement mentioned otherwise.
The residue of this judgement was appealed and again in 2016, the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (2016) held the same.
Also in a 2017 judgement of Indus Mobile Distribution Private Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Private and Others, a division bench in the Supreme court held that if an arbitration clause fixes the jurisdiction of a Court of any particular place in case of any disputes, it would exclude the jurisdiction of Courts in other places.
The scope and the ambit of Section 9 of the Act act as a crucial remedy before or during arbitration proceedings and even after the arbitral award but before its enforcement.
The basic tenet for the application of the law of arbitration is an agreement with an arbitration clause. Section 9 of the Act in this regard is no exception. However, it also states that the parties should only approach the court seeking an interim relief after the constitution of an arbitral tribunal if the remedy rendered by it under Section 17 of the Act is inefficacious.
Regardless of all this, the scope of Section 9 is very wide for granting an interim relief even after an arbitration proceeding.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
What type of order is passed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Orders for interim relief before or during the arbitration proceedings and even after the passing of an arbitral award but before its enforcement are passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
What were the changes constituted in Section 9 through the 2015 amendment?
Through the 2015 amendment, Section 9 was renumbered as Section 9(1). Further, two of the subsections, 9(2) and 9(3) respectively were added.
Section 9(2) provides the deadline to commence an arbitration proceeding within 90 days immediately after filing an application under Section 9. Section 9(3) bars the Court from interfering after the constitution of an arbitral tribunal and allows only to interfere if the remedy rendered by the tribunal under Section 17 is inefficacious.
What is the main difference between Section 9 and Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Section 9 of the Act allows an individual to file an application for interim relief in the Court while under Section 17, one is allowed to file an application for interim relief in the tribunal.
Section 9(3) of the Act further provides that one can only file an application for interim relief in the Court if the remedy rendered under Section 17 is not ‘efficacious’.
How to file an appeal against orders under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 an individual can appeal against the orders under section 9 made to the competent court with jurisdiction.
Can anyone file a second appeal under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Section 37(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that for appeals passed under Section 9, no second appeal shall lie.
However, the Section further provides that an individual has the right to approach the Supreme Court for appeal.
What is the remedy against arbitration award?
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no provision to appeal against an arbitral award. It is final and binding for both parties.
However, an aggrieved party can file an application to set aside the arbitral award on the grounds as provided under Section 34 of the Act.
Under Section 9, within how many days of the order arbitral proceedings shall be commenced after interim measures of protection are ordered by the Court?
After the 2015 amendment, Section 9(2) states that after the passing of the interim orders under Section 9(1) of the Act, the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within 90 days from the date of such order or within such further time as determined by the Court.
When can the courts in India entertain an application for interim relief under section 9 of of Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Section 9(3) of the Act provides that the Court shall entertain an application under section 9 only after the court finds that the remedy sought from an arbitral tribunal under section 17 is inefficacious.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:https://t.me/lawyerscommunity