The Court observed that the words in Section 9 of the Act “the party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a court”, has to be given full effect. I
Delhi High Court in the instant matter dealt with the question of maintainability of petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) during the pendency of the enforcement of the arbitral Award, proposed to be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.
The Court observed that the words in Section 9 of the Act “the party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a court”, has to be given full effect. It cannot be overlooked while discussing the powers of the Court in the context of Sections 34 and 36 of the Act. While there may be a restriction on the Court passing an “interlocutory order in regard to the said award”, the Court is not denuded of the power under Section 9 to pass an order granting any other appropriate interim relief. One situation might be like the one as was in the instant case, where the party in whose favour the award has been made, and who is precluded from filing a petition under Section 36 of the Act since the limitation period for a challenge to the award is not over or the petition challenging the award has not been disposed of, is anxious that its attempt in future to have the award enforced is not frustrated by the opposite party. The Court might, if satisfied, pass an interim order under Section 9 of the Act not in regard to the award itself but by restraining the person against whom the award is made from removing its assets or preserving their status quo pending the disposal of the petition challenging the award.
[Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investments Ltd. & Ors. vs. Shakti Nath & Ors.]
(Delhi HC, 11.2.2015)