Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Source: Allahabad Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra has held that a claim for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be granted when approached after an unreasonable delay of 27 years without justifiable explanation. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Messrs Law Publishers & Another v. Sri Virender Sagar & 3 Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Messrs Law Publishers and another v. Sri Virender Sagar and 3 others. (2025) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a family-run partnership business called 'Messers Law Publishers' at Allahabad, which was engaged in publishing and sale of law books. 
• The partnership was initially formed in 1976 with multiple family members as partners.  
• After the death of partner B.L. Sagar in April 1996, a new partnership deed was executed on 16th April 1996.  
• Smt. Vibha, claiming to be a sleeping partner since 1976, alleged that other partners were attempting to alienate the firm's immovable properties.  
• She sent a legal notice in October 2023 and subsequently filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief.  
• The respondents contested her claim, alleging that she had retired from the partnership in 1996 and transferred her share to another partner.  
• They also disputed the genuineness of the partnership deed relied upon by the appellant, terming it forged and fabricated. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the appellant's claim suffered from fatal flaws regarding the essential ingredients required for granting interim injunctive relief. 
• The Court noted that there was an unexplained delay of 27 years in approaching the court, during which the appellant remained completely inactive despite being a businessperson running similar operations in Delhi.  
• The Court found that being family members, it was inconceivable that the appellant was unaware of the partnership's ongoing business activities.  
• The Court applied the doctrine of laches, citing that "delay defeats equities" and that unreasonable delay disentitles a person from obtaining discretionary equitable relief.  
• Regarding the three essential conditions for interim relief, the Court held that : 
  • no prima facie case was established due to the prolonged unexplained delay, 
  • the balance of convenience did not favour the appellant as she had no involvement in the business operations,  
  • there was no irreparable injury since her monetary rights, if established, could be compensated even if properties were alienated.  
• The Court concluded that the appellant's "surprise appearance" immediately when properties were allegedly being transferred, after 27 years of silence, demonstrated the absence of a genuine claim deserving interim protection. 

What is Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? 

• Section 9 empowers courts to grant interim measures of protection before, during, or after arbitral proceedings but before enforcement of the arbitral award. 
• Any party to an arbitration agreement can approach the court seeking interim relief for various protective measures during the arbitration process. 
• The court can appoint guardians for minors or persons of unsound mind specifically for the purposes of arbitral proceedings under this provision. 
• Courts are authorized to preserve, provide interim custody, or order sale of goods that form the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement. 
• The provision allows courts to secure the amount in dispute in arbitration to ensure effective enforcement of the final award. 
• Courts can order detention, preservation, or inspection of any property related to the arbitration dispute and authorize entry into premises for necessary observations or experiments. 
• Interim injunctions and appointment of receivers can be granted by courts under this section to maintain the status quo during arbitration. 
• Once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, courts cannot entertain Section 9 applications unless circumstances exist that render Section 17 remedies (tribunal's interim measures) inefficacious. 
• If interim measures are granted before arbitration commences, the arbitral proceedings must begin within 90 days of the court order, or within such extended time as the court may determine.