{"id":282790,"date":"2023-01-31T15:00:02","date_gmt":"2023-01-31T09:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=282790"},"modified":"2023-02-02T16:34:08","modified_gmt":"2023-02-02T11:04:08","slug":"section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/b> In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> r\/w Section 2(1)<\/a> of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a> had been filed by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to reimburse\/release the amount which had been deducted illegally and arbitrarily by the respondent in breach of the Arbitral Award, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. dismissed the petition and held that considering the limitations delineated under Section 9 of the Act, this Court could not grant a permanent relief to the petitioner, especially when an Award had already been made highlighting the extent of claims and reliefs that the parties were legally entitled for.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

The parties entered into a Concession Agreement in 2006 for the design, construction, development, finance, operations, and maintenance of K.M. 367.00 (Adloor Yellareddy) to K.M. 447.000 (Kalkallu) covering 85,745 km and improvement, operation, and maintenance of K.M. 447.000 (Kalkallu) – 464.000 (Gundla-Pochanpalli) covering 17,000 km on NH-7 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner was involved in construction, operation and maintenance of the Project arising out of the Concession Agreement between the parties. The respondent was the National Highways Authority of India responsible for maintenance, management and development of National Highways or stretch of the National Highways vested in or entrusted to it by the Central Government. The final Completion Certificate was also obtained by the petitioner in 2009. Thereafter, disputes arose between parties regarding the requirement to do renewal work every five years. After several attempts of resolution of such disputes, with the intervention of this Court in GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd.<\/i> v. National Highways Authority of India<\/i>, OMP(I)(COMM) No. 421 of 2018, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by the Indian Council of Arbitration and, the Award was passed in 2020.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, in 2020, the petitioner raised an invoice for the payment of the 22nd<\/span> Annuity and thereafter, also submitted the work plan for undertaking renewal work as per the respondent, subject to the release of payment by the respondent in terms of the Arbitral Award. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent issued a letter recommending the payment of Rs. 54,18,00,000\/-, however, a few days later the respondent recommended the damages of Rs. 27,37,86,366\/- and that Rs. 1,73,75,807\/- be imposed on for causing delay in completing the 2nd renewal work and non-compliance of operation and maintenance obligations. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner received Rs. 38,79,15,763\/- after the deductions made by the respondent, by which the petitioner was aggrieved and was hence, praying the rest of the amount, i.e., Rs. 12,56,72,430\/- be released in its favour by way of this instant petition seeking mandatory injunction.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court noted that the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent was that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted under Section 9 of the Act and the petitioner before this Court was seeking remittance and release of amount allegedly withheld by the respondent illegally on the ground of delay for carrying out the 2nd<\/span> renewal work.<\/p>\n

The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether the relief sought by the petitioner may be granted by a Court exercising powers under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>?”<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that “a bare reading of Section 9 of the Act revealed that this Court had the power to make orders granting interim measure of protection under the Act. An interim relief may be granted by the appropriate court at any point of time but before the Arbitral award becomes enforceable under Section 36 of the Act. The intention was to grant relief to the party in the intervening period from the till the Award attains finality and was enforced as per the provisions of the Act”<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that “the words ‘such other interim measure of protection’ had been inserted in Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the Act to define and narrow down the scope of the nature of interim relief that might be granted by the Court adjudicating upon petition under Section 9 of the Act. The words used thereto were ‘as may appear to the court to be just and convenient’ which was a testament to the power vested with the Court to pass an order that it deemed fit, just, and convenient, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 9”<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that a relief beyond the final relief as an interim measure, at the preliminary stage, should not be granted and even if granted had to be with utmost caution and vigilance. The Court further opined that an intervention and interference of the Court in an arbitral proceeding should be only to such an extent that it should not render the entire process of arbitration proceedings infructuous by overstepping and granting a relief which the mandate of the legislation did not permit and the role of the Courts, to an extent, was supervisory when it came to the proceedings under the Act.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the petitioner was seeking relief in the nature of a permanent order praying for directions to the respondent to remit the amount deducted by it once and for all. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and held that considering the limitations delineated under Section 9 of the Act, this Court could not grant a permanent relief to the petitioner, especially when an Award had already been made highlighting the extent of claims and reliefs that the parties were legally entitled for. The Court further held that the mandate of the provision did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure in favour of either party under the Act.<\/p>\n

[GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 395<\/a>, decided on 10-1-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner: Advocate Atul Sharma;<\/p>\n

Advocate Harshita Agarwal;<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Advocate Ankur Mittal;<\/p>\n

Advocate Abhay Gupta.<\/p>\n

ORDER BY: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh*<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

*Simranjeet Kaur, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":279267,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2633,40741,14201,54829,46868],"class_list":["post-282790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitral_award","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-permanent-injunction","tag-permanent-measure","tag-section-9"],"yoast_head":"\nSection 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r\/w Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r\/w Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-01-31T09:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-02-02T11:04:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"391\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"311\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-01-31T09:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-02-02T11:04:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1028,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/12\\\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"arbitral award\",\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996\",\"permanent injunction\",\"permanent measure\",\"Section 9\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/12\\\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-01-31T09:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-02-02T11:04:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r\\\/w Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/12\\\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/12\\\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"width\":391,\"height\":311,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/31\\\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9 | SCC Times","description":"In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r\/w Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9","og_description":"In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r\/w Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-01-31T09:30:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-02-02T11:04:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":391,"height":311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9","datePublished":"2023-01-31T09:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2023-02-02T11:04:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/"},"wordCount":1028,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","keywords":["arbitral award","Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996","permanent injunction","permanent measure","Section 9"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/","name":"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","datePublished":"2023-01-31T09:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2023-02-02T11:04:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a case wherein an instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r\/w Section 2(1) of the Commercial Courts","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","width":391,"height":311,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/section-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-permit-passing-of-an-order-in-the-nature-of-a-permanent-measure-delhi-high-court-denies-permanent-injunction-under-section-9-of-the-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":200608,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/24\/suit-not-maintainable-as-matter-to-go-through-arbitration-by-virtue-of-section-8-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":282790,"position":0},"title":"Suit not maintainable as matter to go through arbitration by virtue of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 24, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Amit Rawal, J., allowed a revision petition which was filed against the order whereby an application submitted under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of dispute was dismissed by the Trial Court. The facts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":330009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":282790,"position":1},"title":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Arbitration Roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/delhi-high-court-amendment-application-being-rejected-as-belated-does-not-constitute-interim-award-susceptible-to-challenge-under-s-34-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":282790,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court: Amendment application being rejected as ‘belated’ does not constitute interim award susceptible to challenge under S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (\u2018A&C Act') challenging an order passed wherein the arbitrator rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim, Prateek Jalan, J. dismissed the petition as non-maintainable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":187414,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/09\/application-s-11-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-not-application-court-understood-s-42-within-meaning-s-21e\/","url_meta":{"origin":282790,"position":3},"title":"Application under S. 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not an application before a court as understood under S. 42 within the meaning of S. 2(1)(e)","author":"Saba","date":"February 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter, the \u2018Act\u2019), seeking extension of time for making of the arbitral award by the Tribunal. The respondents argued that since the Arbitral Tribunal had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":298424,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/03\/mere-use-of-word-arbitration-or-arbitrator-not-enough-to-construe-an-arbitration-agreement-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":282790,"position":4},"title":"Mere use of word \u2018arbitration\u2019 or \u2018arbitrator\u2019 not enough to construe an agreement to be an arbitration agreement: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365080,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/29\/del-hc-order-passed-u-s-25a-of-ac-act-not-award\/","url_meta":{"origin":282790,"position":5},"title":"Order terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act is not an ‘Award’: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"October 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSuch an order merely terminates the arbitral proceedings on account of the claimant\u2019s default in filing the statement of claim and does not involve any adjudication or determination of the rights or obligations of the parties.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Order under Section 25(a) of A&C Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Order-under-Section-25a-of-AC-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Order-under-Section-25a-of-AC-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Order-under-Section-25a-of-AC-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Order-under-Section-25a-of-AC-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=282790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282790\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}