Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi 2026 INSC 415
Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi 2026 INSC 415
Bench – Manoj Misra and Manmohan, JJ.
Delivered on April 24, 2026
Facts: The case arose from a batch of appeals challenging various High Court decisions regarding the maintainability of post-award interim relief. Specifically, the Bombay High Court had dismissed appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) by relying on its prior ruling in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd. 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481. In Dirk India, the court had held that a party who was unsuccessful in arbitral proceedings could not maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Act because they had no “fruits of the award” to protect. The Supreme Court noted a significant conflict among High Courts on this matter:
Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts held that unsuccessful parties could not seek Section 9 relief post-award.
Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts took the opposite view, holding that such petitions are maintainable.
Reasoning by Court:
Literal and Statutory Interpretation: Section 9 of the Act uses the expression ‘a party’, which Section 2(h) defines simply as “a party to an arbitration agreement”. The Court found that the statute does not distinguish between a successful and an unsuccessful party, and assigning a narrower meaning to the term party post-award would result in an anomalous situation.
Departure from UNCITRAL Model Law: The Indian Parliament consciously departed from Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (which only covers “before or during” proceedings) by adding a third stage: “at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced”. This expansion was intended to ensure parties retain access to the Court until the judicial process reaches its culmination.
Modification of Awards: The Court rejected the premise of the Dirk India judgment that a Section 34 court can only uphold or set aside an award. Citing Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986, the Court noted that awards can be modified or severed, meaning an unsuccessful party might still eventually prevail on part of their claim or have a counter-claim set aside.
Distinct Spheres of Operation: The Court clarified that Section 9 operates in a different sphere than Sections 34 (challenging an award) and 36 (staying an award). Section 9 ensures the protection of the subject matter or amount in dispute, whereas Section 36 is confined to enforceability. Denying Section 9 relief would leave a losing party remediless during the pendency of a Section 34 challenge, even if the award is potentially fraudulent or patently illegal.
Purposive Interpretation: Even if a purposive approach were used, the Court could envision rare and compelling cases where a losing party needs protection, such as maintaining the confidentiality of documents or preventing the dissipation of assets while a challenge is pending.
The Supreme Court concluded that any party to an arbitration agreement, including an unsuccessful party, may invoke Section 9 of the Act at the post-award stage. The Court declared that the prior judgments of the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts holding the contrary do not lay down good law. However, the Court issued a mandate of care, caution, and circumspection, stating that while maintainable, the threshold for granting interim relief will be higher for an unsuccessful party. Relief should only be granted in rare and compelling cases to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of the challenge proceedings.