OSTERREICHISCHER LLOYD SEEREEDEREI v. VICTORE SHIPS PVT LTD
Maintainability of Section 9 Petitions for Interim Relief Pending Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under Part II of the Arbitration Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6178
Decision Date: 10-03-2026
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 9 - Interim Measures by Court; Section 2(2) - Scope of Part I; Section 47 - Evidence for Foreign Awards; Section 48 - Conditions for Enforcement; Section 49 - Enforcement of Foreign Awards; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Facts: The Petitioner, a Cyprus-based entity, obtained a foreign arbitral award dated March 23, 2020, against the Respondent for the sum of USD 269,105.08. Seeking to secure this amount, the Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim measures. Simultaneously, the Petitioner initiated a separate petition under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act for the recognition and enforcement of the said foreign award. The Respondent opposed the Section 9 petition, primarily contending that once a petition for enforcement under Part II of the Act is filed, the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9 ceases to exist. The Respondent argued that because enforcement and execution of foreign awards are "rolled up" into a composite proceeding, the temporal window for Section 9 relief, which closes upon enforcement, had effectively shut.
- Procedural Posture: The matter came before the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court as an original side commercial arbitration petition seeking interlocutory protection pending the enforcement of a foreign award.
- Issue: Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in respect of a foreign award after a petition for its recognition and enforcement under Part II has been initiated?
- Holding: Yes, the Court retains jurisdiction. The mere filing of a petition under Part II for recognition and enforcement does not bar the Court from granting interim relief under Section 9.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 2(2) of the Act explicitly extends the applicability of Section 9 to international commercial arbitrations, even if the seat is outside India. Unlike domestic awards under Part I, which automatically become enforceable as a decree under Section 36 after the challenge period expires, a foreign award requires a positive affirmation of enforceability by an Indian Court under Section 49 before it is deemed a decree. The Court observed that the phrase "before it is enforced" in Section 9(1) refers to the stage where the award has actually attained the status of a decree. Since a foreign award only attains this status after the Court is satisfied of its enforceability under Part II, the window for Section 9 relief remains open during the pendency of recognition proceedings. The Court further noted that the legislative intent of Section 9 is to prevent a foreign award from becoming a "paper award" by protecting the creditor against the dissipation of assets during the intervening period before final recognition.
🔒 For Members Only