The Delhi High Court clarified the interplay between court-granted interim measures and arbitral tribunal jurisdiction, holding that interim arrangements under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may continue until the tribunal is constituted under Section 11, after which the matter falls under Section 17 for the tribunal’s consideration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The parties, Sakarni Plaster India (P) Ltd (petitioner) and Classic Gypsum Industries Pvt Ltd (respondent), are bound by an arbitration agreement. The petitioner invoked Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by filing ARB.P. 1526/2026 seeking constitution of an arbitral tribunal. Pending constitution, the petitioner sought interim measures to preserve the status quo.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is Sakarni Plaster India (P) Ltd, a manufacturer of plaster products.
- The respondent is Classic Gypsum Industries Pvt Ltd, engaged in gypsum-based products.
- An arbitration agreement exists between the parties governing their commercial dispute.
- The petitioner filed a Section 11 petition (ARB.P. 1526/2026) for constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
- The court passed an interim order on 29 July 2026 directing that the interim arrangement then operating shall continue until the arbitral tribunal considers the matter.
- The present petition is O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 219/2026 filed before the High Court of Delhi.
Procedural History
- 29 July 2026: Interim order passed by the Court directing continuation of the existing interim arrangement.
- 23 September 2026: Judgment delivered in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 219/2026 disposing of the petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Continuation of the interim arrangement dated 29 July 2026 until the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
- Upon constitution, that the present petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act and placed before the tribunal.
- No specific monetary relief was claimed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court-granted interim arrangement under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should continue after the initiation of Section 11 proceedings for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, and how the petition ought to be treated once the tribunal is constituted.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that they had already moved a Section 11 petition (ARB.P. 1526/2026) for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. They argued that, pending constitution, the interim arrangement should remain undisturbed to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm. They relied on Sections 9 and 17 of the Act to assert that the court possesses power to grant interim measures and that such measures do not prejudice the tribunal’s subsequent authority.
For the Respondent
The judgment does not record any specific arguments advanced by the respondent. The respondent did not contest the maintainability of the petition or the interim relief sought, and no counter-submissions are reflected in the order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It noted that Section 11 empowers a party to approach the court for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, while Section 9 permits the court to grant interim measures. The Court held that the interim arrangement directed by its order dated 29 July 2026 shall continue until the learned Arbitral Tribunal constitutes and considers the matter. Upon constitution, the present petition is to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act and placed before the tribunal for consideration in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that all rights and contentions of the parties remain open and that the interim order does not constitute an expressed opinion on the merits of the dispute. The tribunal retains the power to continue, modify, verify or vacate the interim arrangement.
"Upon constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the present Petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act and shall be placed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law."
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Court directed that the interim arrangement granted by its order dated 29 July 2026 shall continue until the learned Arbitral Tribunal constitutes and considers the matter. The present O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 219/2026 is disposed of. No costs, damages, or monetary relief were awarded to either party. All rights and contentions of the parties remain open for consideration by the tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Measures May Persist Until Tribunal Constitution
- Court-granted interim measures under Section 9 remain operative until the arbitral tribunal is constituted under Section 11.
- Such measures do not expire merely because Section 11 proceedings have been initiated.
Party Autonomy and Arbitration Agreement Remain Central
- The Court stressed that interim orders must not interfere with the arbitration agreement.
- Once the tribunal is constituted, the primary forum for interim relief shifts to the tribunal under Section 17.
Limited Judicial Intervention in Arbitral Proceedings
- Courts should exercise restraint and allow arbitral tribunals to determine interim matters after constitution.
- The judgment reinforces the competence-competence principle and party autonomy in commercial arbitration.
