ARTICLE
28 July 2026

SC Holds That Granting Interim Reliefs To Unsuccessful Party In Arbitration Should Be Done Only In Rare And Compelling Cases

AP
AZB & Partners

Contributor

AZB & Partners is one of India's premier law firms with 500+ lawyers and offices across the country. The firm was founded in 2004 with a clear purpose to provide reliable, practical and full–service advice to clients, across all sectors. Having grown steadily since its inception, AZB & Partners now has offices across Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Pune and Chennai. We are recognized by most international publications for our legal expertise.
The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of interim relief available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, addressing whether unsuccessful parties in arbitration proceedings retain the right to seek protective measures post-award. This landmark ruling examines the interpretation of 'a party' under the statutory framework and establishes the stringent standards courts must apply when evaluating such applications from parties who did not prevail in arbitration.
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
AZB & Partners are most popular:
  • within Strategy, Environment and International Law topic(s)
  • with Senior Company Executives and HR
  • with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Law Firm industries

The SC in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi1 held that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, may seek interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), at the post-award stage, as the expression ‘a party’ under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act draws no distinction based on the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. However, the SC also observed that the threshold for grant of interim relief will be higher in the case of an unsuccessful party seeking such relief, and that such relief should be granted only in rare and compelling cases, with courts exercising care, caution, and circumspection.

Footnote

1. Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 670.

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.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More