Written by the Delhi Legal Company International Arbitration team · Last updated August 2026 · Reviewed against Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and authority to Victore Ships (March 2026) and 2026 INSC 415 (April 2026)
Written by the Delhi Legal Company International Arbitration team · Last updated August 2026 · Reviewed against Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and authority to Victore Ships (March 2026) and 2026 INSC 415 (April 2026)
The authorities this guide relies on
| Case | Citation | Proposition |
|---|---|---|
| Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja | (2004) 3 SCC 155 | Standing flows from being party to the arbitration agreement |
| Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. | (2007) 7 SCC 125 | Relief must accord with settled injunction and specific relief principles |
| Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd. | Delhi HC, 2020 | Injunction against a bank guarantee needs fraud or irretrievable injury |
| Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. | (2022) 1 SCC 712; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 718 | “Entertain” in s.9(3) means application of mind, not mere filing |
| Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. | SC, 2022 | Section 9 relief is not fettered by strict CPC attachment standards |
| Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. | 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2112 | Delhi HC on the scope of relief in aid of foreign awards |
| Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. | 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986 | Referenced in the 2026 reconsideration of s.9 breadth |
| Osterreichischer Lloyd (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd. | 2026:BHC-OS:6178 (Bom HC, 10 Mar 2026) | Section 9 survives the enforcement petition, until the s.49 decree |
| SLP(C) Nos. 29972/2015, 11139/2020 & 26876/2014 | 2026 INSC 415 (SC, 24 Apr 2026) | Section 9 restored to its statutory breadth; departs from Dirk India |
| Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. MSEGC | 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481 | The “no locus for losing parties” line, now departed from |
| Goodwill Non-Woven (P) Ltd. v. Xcoal Energy and Resources LLC | Delhi HC | Section 9 is textually mutual — an Indian party may invoke it too |
| Norvic Shipping; Malaney | Bombay HC, 2026 | An emergency arbitrator clause does not oust Section 9 |
Introduction
For a foreign party in dispute with an Indian counterparty, Section 9 is not one remedy among several. It is usually the only one that works.
The reason is structural. Interim orders made by a foreign-seated tribunal are not directly enforceable in India. A freezing order from a London or Singapore tribunal is a piece of paper as far as an Indian bank account is concerned.
Section 9 produces an order of an Indian court, binding on Indian assets, enforceable through Indian process. Nothing else does.
Three things about it are worth knowing before you need it. The Section 9(3) bar is unlikely to apply to a foreign-seated arbitration at all, because Section 17 — the remedy it points to — operates only for India-seated cases. There is a 90-day trap in Section 9(2) that catches parties who obtain relief before commencing arbitration. And the post-award window closes at the Section 49 decree, which is earlier than most people assume.
1. Why this matters more to a foreign party
| India-seated arbitration | Foreign-seated arbitration | |
|---|---|---|
| Tribunal’s interim order | Section 17 — enforceable as a court order under s.17(2) | Not directly enforceable in India |
| Emergency arbitrator award | Enforceable following Amazon v. Future Retail | Not directly enforceable |
| Route to bind Indian assets | Section 17 or Section 9 | Section 9 only |
This asymmetry is the single most important fact in the area, and it drives everything below — including why the Section 9(3) restriction reads differently for you.
2. Three windows
Section 9 operates at three points. Most foreign parties know only the middle one.
| Window | When | Principal constraint |
|---|---|---|
| Before | Prior to commencement of arbitral proceedings | Arbitration must commence within 90 days (s.9(2)) |
| During | After commencement, through the proceedings | Section 9(3) once the tribunal is constituted |
| After | After the award, before enforcement completes | Closes at the Section 49 decree |
3. Before arbitration — and the 90-day trap
You do not need a constituted tribunal, or even commenced proceedings, to obtain Section 9 relief.
That is the point of it. If you learn on a Friday that a counterparty is moving the assets your claim depends on, you cannot wait weeks for a tribunal. You file that afternoon, the court can freeze the position, and the arbitration catches up.
3.1 The condition
Where a court passes an interim measure before commencement of arbitral proceedings, Section 9(2) requires the arbitration to commence within 90 days of the order, or such further time as the court determines.
Miss it and the protection you obtained is exposed.
3.2 Why foreign parties miss it
An urgent freezing order feels like the end of a crisis. The commercial instinct is then to negotiate from the improved position — and negotiation takes months.
Diarise the 90 days the day the order is made. If a settlement is genuinely close, apply for an extension before the period runs rather than after.
4. During the arbitration: Section 9(3)
Once the tribunal is constituted, Section 9(3) provides that the court shall not entertain a Section 9 application unless it finds that circumstances exist which may not render the Section 17 remedy efficacious.
The provision was introduced by the 2015 amendment to reduce dependence on courts and prevent conflicting orders from courts and tribunals.
4.1 “Entertain” means application of mind
In Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712, the Supreme Court held that “entertain” means taking up a matter for consideration by application of mind to the issues raised.
So the bar turns on whether the court has begun to engage — not on whether papers were merely filed.
Where a Section 9 application has been entertained and heard and the tribunal is constituted only afterwards, the court is not ousted. The Court added that once a court has reserved orders, the tribunal cannot re-examine the issue in its entirety, as that would rewind the clock on the interim relief.
The practical instruction: file early and get the matter heard. Delay is what lets Section 9(3) close the door.
4.2 Preference is not inefficacy
A party cannot approach the court simply because it prefers a court order. It must explain why the tribunal’s powers will not provide effective protection on the facts.
The enquiry is practical: can the tribunal act in time, can it grant effective relief, and is there imminent risk before it can intervene?
4.3 The point that changes the analysis for a foreign party
Section 9(3) directs you to Section 17. But Section 17 applies only to arbitrations seated in India.
Where the seat is foreign, there is no Section 17 remedy to be efficacious or inefficacious — and a foreign tribunal’s interim orders are not directly enforceable here.
Bombay High Court rulings in 2026, including Norvic Shipping and Malaney, proceed on that basis: the Section 9(3) restriction does not bar foreign-seated cases, precisely because foreign tribunal orders cannot be enforced in India.
Commentary identifies the foreign seat with Indian assets as a paradigm case of Section 17 inefficacy.
Still plead it. Even on the better view, set out expressly why no efficacious alternative exists — the seat, the non-enforceability of the tribunal’s orders in India, and the location of the assets.
4.4 An emergency arbitrator clause does not oust Section 9
Choosing institutional rules that provide for emergency relief does not exclude the Indian court. The 2026 Bombay High Court rulings confirm that the mere existence of emergency relief in the applicable rules does not oust Section 9 jurisdiction.
That matters because an emergency award from a foreign seat faces the same enforceability problem as any other foreign interim order.
5. After the award
The window most parties do not know exists, and it has a defined end.
In Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd., 2026:BHC-OS:6178 (Bombay HC, Sundaresan J, 10 March 2026), the court held that a foreign award-creditor does not lose Section 9 relief merely by filing an enforcement petition under Part II.
A foreign award is not automatically executable. It becomes a decree only when the court, having considered Section 48 objections and been satisfied as to Section 47, declares it enforceable under Section 49. Until then the enforcement process is incomplete and Section 9 remains open.
5.1 What is still unsettled
Victore Ships leaves open whether Section 9 continues after recognition, during execution. High Courts are divided and the point may need Supreme Court clarification.
Plan on the window closing at the decree.
5.2 The April 2026 decision
Separately, in 2026 INSC 415 (24 April 2026, SLP(C) Nos. 29972/2015, 11139/2020 and 26876/2014), the Supreme Court restored Section 9 to its statutory breadth, departing from the line running from Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. MSEGC, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481, that a party without an enforceable award lacks locus.
That decision concerns Section 9 generally, not the foreign-award window specifically. It supports a broad reading; Victore Ships is the authority on the enforcement window.
For the enforcement process itself, see enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India.
6. What relief is available
The menu is deliberately wide and courts have read it generously.
| Relief | Typical use against an Indian counterparty |
|---|---|
| Security for the claim | Deposit, bank guarantee, or security over identified assets |
| Attachment before judgment | Freezing identified property or accounts |
| Interim injunction | Restraining disposal, restraining brand use after termination |
| Appointment of a receiver | Where assets require management or preservation |
| Preservation or inspection | Goods, records, or property in dispute |
| Disclosure of assets | In aid of the above |
In Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. (SC, 2022), the Supreme Court held that Section 9 is not fettered by the strict standards governing attachment before judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure, though the underlying principles remain relevant.
6.1 Bank guarantees are different
In Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd. (Delhi HC, 2020), the court held that an injunction restraining encashment of a bank guarantee requires proof of fraud or irretrievable injury.
The autonomy of a bank guarantee is protected, and a general commercial dispute will not restrain it.
7. The test
Section 9 is wide but it is exercised on settled principles.
In Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125, the Supreme Court cautioned that Section 9 relief must remain consistent with the settled principles governing interim injunctions and specific relief.
An applicant should establish:
- a prima facie case on the underlying claim;
- balance of convenience;
- irreparable prejudice if relief is refused;
- urgency, evidenced rather than asserted.
7.1 Where relief is sought before an award
The applicant must establish a strong prima facie case and satisfy the requirement of irreparable prejudice. Courts consider whether refusing protection may result in the claimant obtaining an award that cannot be enforced because the assets are no longer there.
Evidence the dissipation risk. Asserting that a counterparty “may” move assets is not enough. Charge filings, disposals, transfers to related parties, missed payments and correspondence are what carry an application.
8. Standing
In Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja, (2004) 3 SCC 155, the Supreme Court clarified that the right to seek Section 9 relief flows from being a party to the arbitration agreement, and that a technical bar such as the non-registration of a partnership firm does not defeat the application.
The gateway is the arbitration agreement, not some collateral disability.
8.1 It runs both ways
Section 9 is textually mutual. In Goodwill Non-Woven (P) Ltd. v. Xcoal Energy and Resources LLC, the Delhi High Court applied it literally, holding that an Indian party may invoke Section 9 against a foreign party.
A point to weigh when drafting: the remedy you are preserving is available to your counterparty as well.
9. Appeals
An order under Section 9 is appealable under Section 37.
Where a tribunal is constituted after a court has passed interim orders, the route for an aggrieved party is a Section 37 appeal — not an invitation to the tribunal to revisit the question. As Arcelor Mittal makes clear, a tribunal cannot re-examine what a court has already decided.
10. Drafting to preserve it
All of this depends on the arbitration agreement not excluding recourse to Indian courts.
For a foreign-seated arbitration, Section 9 applies unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Waiver language drafted to sound robust — the parties “waive any right to approach any court” — can remove exactly the remedy you will need.
10.1 What the clause should say
An express carve-out preserving the right to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction, including the courts of India, for interim or conservatory relief in support of the arbitration.
Some clauses go further and scope it to Indian assets, and provide expressly that the availability of emergency relief under the applicable rules does not exclude court recourse.
See arbitration clauses in India contracts.
11. Two situations, worked through
Scenario A — The 90 days that ran out
A European supplier learns its Indian distributor is transferring receivables to a related entity. It obtains a Section 9 attachment before commencing arbitration.
Negotiations follow and look promising. Four months pass.
The problem. Section 9(2) required arbitration to commence within 90 days of the order, or such further time as the court allowed. Neither happened.
What should have happened. Diarise the 90 days on the day of the order, and apply for an extension before the period runs if settlement is genuinely close.
Scenario B — The tribunal that was constituted mid-application
A foreign claimant files a Section 9 application. Affidavits are exchanged, the court hears argument, and the SIAC tribunal is constituted while judgment is reserved. The respondent argues Section 9(3) now bars relief.
The answer, in two parts. On Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712, “entertain” means application of mind — the court had engaged well before constitution, so the bar does not oust it.
And on a foreign seat, Section 9(3) points to Section 17, which does not apply to arbitrations seated abroad. The 2026 Bombay High Court rulings proceed on that footing.
What secured it. Filing early and getting the matter heard. A claimant who filed a month later would have met the bar squarely.
12. Ten mistakes
- Assuming a foreign tribunal’s freezing order works in India. It is not directly enforceable.
- Waiting for the tribunal when Section 9 is available before proceedings commence.
- Missing the 90 days under Section 9(2) after obtaining pre-arbitration relief.
- Filing late, so Section 9(3) bites before the court has engaged.
- Arguing preference rather than inefficacy under Section 9(3).
- Not pleading the foreign-seat point — that Section 17 does not apply, so there is no efficacious alternative.
- Assuming an emergency arbitrator clause is enough. It does not oust Section 9, and its award is not enforceable here.
- Asserting dissipation risk without evidence.
- Seeking to restrain a bank guarantee without fraud or irretrievable injury.
- Drafting a waiver of court recourse that removes Section 9 altogether.
13. Checklist
At drafting
- Express carve-out preserving recourse to Indian courts for interim relief
- Confirmation that emergency relief under the rules does not exclude court recourse
- Consideration of whether to scope the carve-out to Indian assets
When urgency arises
- Section 9 petition filed immediately — before the tribunal is constituted where possible
- Dissipation risk evidenced: charge filings, disposals, related-party transfers, correspondence
- Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable prejudice and urgency each addressed
- Court with jurisdiction over the assets identified
- Where the tribunal is or may be constituted, inefficacy of Section 17 pleaded expressly — including the foreign seat point
After the order
- 90 days diarised where relief was obtained before commencement; extension sought before it runs
- Section 37 appeal considered if relief is refused
- Post-award: Section 9 petition filed alongside the enforcement petition, since the window closes at the Section 49 decree
Assets moving while your arbitration runs?
A foreign tribunal’s order does not bind an Indian bank account. Section 9 does — and it is available earlier and later than most parties realise. Tell us the seat, the stage and what you think is being moved and we will tell you which window you are in and what the application needs to show.
14. Frequently asked questions
Q1. What is Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
The provision allowing a party to an arbitration agreement to apply to an Indian court for interim measures of protection — security, attachment, injunction, a receiver, preservation or inspection — before, during, or after arbitral proceedings, until the award is enforced.
Q2. Why does Section 9 matter so much to a foreign party?
Because interim orders made by a foreign-seated tribunal are not directly enforceable in India. A freezing order from a London or Singapore tribunal does not bind an Indian bank account. Section 9 produces an order of an Indian court, and for a foreign-seated arbitration it is usually the only route that works against Indian assets.
Q3. Can Section 9 be used before arbitration has commenced?
Yes, and that is much of its value. You do not need a constituted tribunal or even commenced proceedings — if a counterparty is moving assets, an application can be made immediately and the arbitration can follow.
Q4. What is the 90-day rule under Section 9(2)?
Where a court passes an interim measure before commencement of arbitral proceedings, the arbitration must commence within 90 days of the order, or such further time as the court determines. Missing it exposes the protection obtained.
Q5. Why do parties miss the 90 days?
Because an urgent freezing order feels like the end of a crisis, and the commercial instinct is to negotiate from the improved position — which takes months. Diarise the 90 days on the day of the order and seek an extension before it runs if settlement is close.
Q6. What does Section 9(3) restrict?
Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, the court shall not entertain a Section 9 application unless it finds circumstances exist which may not render the Section 17 remedy efficacious. It was introduced by the 2015 amendment to reduce dependence on courts and avoid conflicting orders.
Q7. What does “entertain” mean in Section 9(3)?
Taking up a matter for consideration by application of mind to the issues raised, per Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712. The bar turns on whether the court has begun to engage, not on whether papers were merely filed.
Q8. What if the tribunal is constituted while our application is pending?
If the application has been entertained and heard, the court is not ousted. Arcelor Mittal added that once a court has reserved orders, the tribunal cannot re-examine the issue in its entirety, since that would rewind the clock on the interim relief.
Q9. Can we go to court simply because we prefer a court order?
No. Preference is not inefficacy. A party must explain why the tribunal’s powers will not provide effective protection on the facts — whether the tribunal can act in time, grant effective relief, and whether there is imminent risk before it can intervene.
Q10. Does Section 9(3) apply to foreign-seated arbitrations?
Very likely not. Section 9(3) directs a party to Section 17, and Section 17 applies only to arbitrations seated in India. Bombay High Court rulings in 2026 including Norvic Shipping and Malaney proceed on that basis, precisely because a foreign tribunal’s interim orders are not enforceable here.
Q11. Should we still plead inefficacy if the seat is foreign?
Yes. Even on the better view, set out expressly why no efficacious alternative exists — the seat, the non-enforceability of the tribunal’s orders in India, and the location of the assets. Commentary treats the foreign seat with Indian assets as a paradigm case of Section 17 inefficacy.
Q12. Does an emergency arbitrator clause remove access to Section 9?
No. The 2026 Bombay High Court rulings confirm that the mere existence of emergency relief in the applicable institutional rules does not oust Section 9 jurisdiction — which matters because an emergency award from a foreign seat faces the same enforceability problem as any other foreign interim order.
Q13. Is Section 9 available after the award?
Yes, within a defined window. In Osterreichischer Lloyd Seereederei (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Victore Ships Pvt. Ltd., 2026:BHC-OS:6178 (Bombay HC, 10 March 2026), the court held a foreign award-creditor does not lose Section 9 relief merely by filing an enforcement petition under Part II.
Q14. When does the post-award window close?
At the Section 49 decree. A foreign award is not automatically executable — it becomes a decree only when the court, having considered Section 48 objections and been satisfied as to Section 47, declares it enforceable. Until then Section 9 remains open.
Q15. Does Section 9 continue during execution?
That is unsettled. Victore Ships expressly leaves the question open, High Courts are divided, and it may need Supreme Court clarification. Plan on the window closing at the decree.
Q16. What did the Supreme Court decide on Section 9 in April 2026?
In 2026 INSC 415 (24 April 2026) the Court restored Section 9 to its statutory breadth, departing from the line running from Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. MSEGC, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481, that a party without an enforceable award lacks locus. It concerns Section 9 generally rather than the foreign-award window.
Q17. What relief can a court grant under Section 9?
Security for the claim, attachment before judgment, interim injunction, appointment of a receiver, preservation or inspection of property, and disclosure in aid of those measures. The menu is deliberately wide and has been read generously.
Q18. Do strict attachment standards under the CPC apply?
Not strictly. In Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. (SC, 2022), the Supreme Court held Section 9 is not fettered by the strict standards governing attachment before judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure, though the underlying principles remain relevant.
Q19. Can Section 9 restrain a bank guarantee?
Rarely. In Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd. (Delhi HC, 2020) the court held an injunction restraining encashment requires proof of fraud or irretrievable injury. The autonomy of a bank guarantee is protected and a general commercial dispute will not restrain it.
Q20. What must an applicant establish?
A prima facie case on the underlying claim, balance of convenience, irreparable prejudice if relief is refused, and evidenced urgency. Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125, holds that relief must remain consistent with settled injunction and specific relief principles.
Q21. How is dissipation risk proved?
With evidence rather than assertion. Charge filings, disposals, transfers to related parties, missed payments and correspondence are what carry an application. Courts consider whether refusing protection may leave the claimant with an award that cannot be enforced because the assets have gone.
Q22. Who has standing to apply under Section 9?
A party to the arbitration agreement. In Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja, (2004) 3 SCC 155, the Supreme Court held the right flows from being party to the agreement, and that a technical bar such as non-registration of a partnership firm does not defeat the application.
Q23. Can an Indian party use Section 9 against a foreign party?
Yes. Section 9 is textually mutual, and in Goodwill Non-Woven (P) Ltd. v. Xcoal Energy and Resources LLC the Delhi High Court applied it literally. Worth weighing at drafting — the remedy you preserve is available to your counterparty too.
Q24. Is a Section 9 order appealable?
Yes, under Section 37. Where a tribunal is constituted after a court has passed interim orders, the route for an aggrieved party is a Section 37 appeal rather than an invitation to the tribunal to revisit the question.
Q25. Can a clause exclude Section 9?
For a foreign-seated arbitration, Section 9 applies unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Waiver language drafted to sound robust — waiving any right to approach any court — can remove exactly the remedy you will need against Indian assets.
Q26. What should the arbitration clause say?
An express carve-out preserving the right to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction, including Indian courts, for interim or conservatory relief in support of the arbitration. Some clauses scope it to Indian assets and confirm that emergency relief under the applicable rules does not exclude court recourse.
International arbitration — related reading
Before the dispute
- Arbitration clauses in India contracts — seat, venue and the carve-out that preserves Section 9
- Shareholders’ agreements for Indian joint ventures — where the dispute clause usually sits
When the dispute runs
- Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India — Section 48, public policy and the Section 49 decree
- Statutory registers under the Companies Act — the public record asset tracing starts from
Afterwards
- Repatriating profits from India — moving recovered sums abroad
- Tax residency certificates and Form 10F — withholding on the remittance
Talk to us before the assets move
Delhi Legal Company works exclusively with foreign companies operating in and contracting with India. Section 9 petitions across all three windows, asset tracing and dissipation evidence, Section 37 appeals, enforcement of foreign awards, and the clause drafting that preserves the remedy.
How we usually start. Tell us the seat, whether a tribunal is constituted, what assets you are concerned about and what you have seen. We come back with which window applies, whether Section 9(3) is engaged, what the application must establish, and which court to approach.