The Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi, issued a pivotal ruling on April 24, 2026, pertaining to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The central legal issue examined by the Court was whether a party that has ‘lost’ in arbitration proceedings, signifying that an enforceable award was not rendered in their favour, is legally entitled to pursue interim measures under Section 9 of the Act at the post-award phase. This ruling addresses a crucial divergence of views among various High Courts regarding the rights of unsuccessful parties to safeguard their interests while contesting an award.
The context of the issue pertains to a series of appeals originating from various jurisdictions where parties that were unsuccessful sought interim relief following the issuance of an arbitral award. Historically, multiple High Courts, including those in Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka, have determined that Section 9 was accessible solely to a party possessing a “money award” or an “enforceable award” in their favour. In contrast, the High Courts of Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana have adopted a more expansive interpretation, indicating that the statutory phrase “any party” should encompass those who may have lost the arbitration yet still require protection while awaiting the final outcome of set-aside proceedings.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court elucidated that the phrase “any party” in Section 9 of the Act should be understood in a literal and expansive manner. The Court argued that if a party that has not succeeded is barred from requesting interim relief, they could experience irreparable harm during the interval between the issuance of the award and the resolution of the challenge under Section 34.It was determined that the entitlement to seek interim measures does not depend on the success or failure of the underlying claims, as the purpose of Section 9 is to maintain the effectiveness of the arbitral process and the subject matter of the dispute.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that the previously held restrictive views of the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts do not constitute sound legal principles. The Court confirmed that a party that has not succeeded may indeed invoke Section 9 at the post-award phase; however, it advised lower courts to exercise considerable “care, caution, and circumspection” when granting such relief to a party whose claims have been dismissed by a tribunal. One appeal within the group was resolved immediately based on these conclusions, while the other cases were scheduled for further hearings to examine their specific factual merits.