Post-Award Interim Measures – The Evolving Contours Of Section 9 Jurisdiction

Introduction

Arbitration is opted by the parties for speedy resolution and finality of disputes. Yet, between getting a favourable arbitral award and its enforcement lies a void in initiating execution proceedings against the award-debtor in cases where the award-debtor fails to satisfy the arbitral award which is nature of a decree. The award-holder may have the arbitral award in its favour; however, the award-debtor may still have the time and incentive to shield its assets in order to avoid its liability towards the arbitral award. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") is the safety net meant to preserve the arbitral award from being rendered illusory.

The purview of Section 9 of the Act provides that a party may approach the court "at any time after making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36". The courts have opined on the meaning of"before it is enforced"; particularly on whether "enforced" should be read as "enforceable". This article dissects the divergent views tendered by courts and the recent decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in B.M. Insultation Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd.¹ on the restrictive approach of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the evolving contours of Section 9 urisdiction.

Section 9 at the Post-Award Stage

Section 9 of the Act encompasses the following three stages: (1) before arbitral proceedings, (2) during arbitral proceedings and (3) after the making of arbitral award but before it is enforced. The third stage has been under the judicial scrutiny primarily due to the nexus between 'enforcement' in the Act and Section 36 of the Act which treats the arbitral award as a decree once it becomes enforceable. The debate, then centres to whether the remedy under Section 9 of the Act is available only up to the point when the award becomes capable of execution, or whether it remains available until the award is executed, satisfied and the obligations of the award-debtor are discharged.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Dirk India (P) Ltd. v. Dirk India (P) Ltd.² determined that Section 9 of the Act is the proximate nexus between the orders that are sought and the arbitral proceedings. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also clarified that when an interim measure of protection is sought after the arbitral award but before it is enforced, the measure of protection is intended to safeguard the fruit of the proceedings until the eventual enforcement of the award and is a step in aid of enforcement. The object is to ensure that enforcement results in a realisable claim and the award is not rendered illusory by dealings that place the subject of the award beyond the pale of enforcement.³ This position of law has been cited and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Corporation Limited v. Union of India⁴.

Recent rulings by the Hon'ble Madras High Court

The Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Gopuram Enterprises Ltd. v. Integrated Finance Company Ltd.⁵ considered a post-award Section 9 petition and read the word 'enforced' as 'enforceable' thereby giving a restricted meaning to the scope of Section 9 of the Act. By virtue of the said judgment of the Division Bench, once the time frame provided under sub-section (3) of Section 34 expires, the award becomes enforceable and therefore, Section 9 cannot be maintained. It accepted that the post-award interim measure under Section 9 is only till such time that the award becomes enforceable and further held that once an award ripens for implementation, it must be executed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and enforcement slips out of the purview of the Act into the domain of CPC.

A divergent view was then taken by the Single Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court in K. Punniyamoorthy v. Ondraga Entertainment & Ors.⁶ vide Order dated 28.04.2023 whilst relying on Dirk India (P) Ltd. v. Dirk India (P) Ltd.⁷, which in turn has taken note of the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hindustan Construction Corporation Limited v. Union of India⁸ thereby interpreting the meaning of the word 'enforced' to mean ' until the complete satisfaction of the award'. The Single Bench of the Hon'ble Court further recorded that Dirk treats post-award interim measures as a step in aid of enforcement and as protection against the award becoming illusory.

The Single Judge of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its Order dated 28.04.2023 raised a practical point that the award-holder is not compelled to execute the arbitral award immediately as Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of twelve (12) years for execution of a decree. In light of Section 36(1) of the Act that the award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court, therefore, an award-holder can have a time limit of twelve (12) years to file for execution of the award and may still require protection in the interregnum period to safeguard the award.The finding of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble Courtin O.A. No.284 of 2023 dated 28.03.2023 to the limited effect that an application under Section 9 of the Act can be maintained post-award but before it is 'enforced' and its scope in Section 9 of the Acthas been upheld by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide Order dated 21.08.2023 in MX Media & Entertainment Pte.Ltd. v. K. Punniyamoorthy & Ors.⁹.

Therefore, divergent views emerged in Gopuram Enterprises Ltd. v. Integrated Finance Company Ltd.¹⁰ wherein, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court gave a restrictive meaning to the scope of Section 9 of the Act by reading the word 'enforced' as 'enforceable' and in K. Punniyamoorthy v .Ondraga Entertainment & Ors.¹¹ wherein, the Single Judge of the Hon'ble Madras High Court interpreted the meaning of the word 'enforced ' to mean ' until the complete satisfaction of the award'.

Reference to Full Bench for authoritative pronouncement

Consequently, in view of the divergent views of the Hon'ble Madras High Court regarding the issue pertaining to the maintainability of Section 9 application(s), another Single Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in B.M. Insultation Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd.¹² vide Order dated 01.09.2025 referred the issue to the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court for clarification on the scope of Section 9 of the Act in providing interim measures post-award and framed two questions: -

"(a) When Section 9 of the Act provides for interim measures before the Court even post arbitral award, but before it is enforced, whether the word 'enforced' can be read down as 'enforceable' and thereby limit the scope of Section 9 of the Act?

(b) Whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be maintained even after the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act?"

The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide Order dated 21.01.2026 in B.M. Insulation Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardeep Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. ¹³ has answered that term"enforced" cannot be read as "enforceable" as "enforced" denotes a completed act as it is the past tense of "enforce". and clarified that a post-award Section 9 application is maintainable until "complete satisfaction of the award". It further held that where the statute uses one word and not the other, the legislative usage of one of these words itself clarifies the legislative intent. The settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Corporation Limited v. Union of India¹⁴ has also been expressly relied upon by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

As per the said ruling of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, filing or pendency of execution proceedings does not bar the recourse to Section 9 of the Act; thereby clarifying that mere filing of execution petition also cannot deny the post-award stage interim measure under Section 9 of the Act.

The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has further held that the post-award pre-enforcement interim measure is a protection guaranteed by the legislature as a step in aid to enforcement and the interim measures of protection as contemplated under Section 9 are intended to protect the claim in arbitration from being frustrated.

Author's Note & Conclusion

Remedy under Section 9of the Act post pronouncement of the arbitral award functions as a bridge between the arbitral award and execution of the arbitral award. The Order dated 21.01.2026¹⁵ passed by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court notably extends this jurisdiction in the way of utmost importance i.e. time and stage of filing of the Section 9 petition. The emphasis laid by the statute and courts for granting relief is that relief at the post-award stage is protective and not executory and therefore, Section 9 must not become a substitute for execution mechanisms. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has clarified that the word 'enforced' under Section 9 of the Act cannot be read as 'enforceable' and that the word 'enforced' denotes a completed act and hence, the phrase 'before it is enforced' signifies 'until the complete satisfaction of the award'.Thus, it affirms that the legislature did not intent to close the doors of Section 9 jurisdiction merely because an award has become enforceable and that interim protection may be sought until the arbitral award is actually enforced till the complete satisfaction of the arbitral award i.e. till the arbitral award is actually executed and the arbitral award/decree is satisfied.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.