Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a party to seek interim measures from the court before, during, or after arbitral proceedings but before the award is enforced. It has usually been the successful party that uses the post-award window, to protect assets pending enforcement.
In Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi (2026 INSC 415, decided 24 April 2026, Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan), the Supreme Court held that either party may seek interim measures under Section 9 at any stage, including after the award, and that a party that did not win the award may also seek interim protection. The Court stressed that relief for an unsuccessful party at this stage should be granted only in rare and compelling cases, with care and circumspection.
Why it matters: an unsuccessful party may have a genuine need to protect its position — for example, where it has challenged the award and faces irreversible harm before that challenge is decided. The ruling confirms the door is open, but narrowly.
The practical takeaway: award-holders should not assume they alone can use the post-award Section 9 window, and unsuccessful parties should expect to show a strong, specific case of irreparable prejudice rather than a general wish to delay enforcement.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.