By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 28 September 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
Two Provisions, One Purpose
Interim relief in Indian arbitration is governed by two distinct provisions serving essentially the same purpose, preserving assets, evidence, or the status quo pending resolution of the dispute, but through different forums. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a party to approach a court, while Section 17 allows a party to approach the arbitral tribunal itself, once constituted. Since the 2015 amendment, orders under both provisions carry equal enforceability, but the choice between them still matters and depends heavily on the stage of the dispute and the nature of the relief required.
Before the Tribunal Exists, Section 9 Is the Only Option
Where a dispute has arisen but the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted, perhaps the parties are still in the process of appointing an arbitrator, or a Section 11 application is pending: Section 9 is the only available route for urgent interim relief. This is precisely the scenario the provision was designed for: preventing a party from suffering irreversible harm during the gap between a dispute crystallising and a tribunal being in place to hear it.
After the Tribunal Is Constituted: The Efficacy Test Under Section 9(3)
Once a tribunal is constituted, Section 9(3) directs a court not to entertain a fresh Section 9 application unless it finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy under Section 17 efficacious. In practice, this means courts will generally expect a party to approach the tribunal for interim relief once one is in place, reserving court intervention for situations where the tribunal genuinely cannot provide an adequate remedy in time: for instance, where relief is needed against a third party the tribunal has no jurisdiction over, or where the urgency is such that even the short time needed to convene the tribunal would defeat the purpose of the relief sought.
A pending Section 9 application filed before the tribunal was constituted does not automatically lapse merely because the tribunal now exists: courts assess such situations on their own facts rather than applying an automatic bar, as reaffirmed in recent case law. But a fresh application filed after constitution faces the efficacy test squarely.
What Section 17 Can and Cannot Do
An arbitral tribunal's power under Section 17 mirrors the court's power under Section 9 in scope: it can order measures for the preservation, interim custody or sale of goods, securing the amount in dispute, interim injunctions, appointment of a receiver, and similar protective measures. Since the 2015 amendment, a Section 17 order is deemed to be an order of the court for enforcement purposes and is enforceable in the same manner as a court order under the CPC: closing what had previously been a significant practical gap between the two provisions.
The key limitation on Section 17 is jurisdictional: a tribunal's authority under Section 17 extends only to the parties to the arbitration agreement before it, and generally cannot bind a non-party or a stranger to the arbitration, which remains a scenario where Section 9 court relief may be the only realistic route even after a tribunal is in place.
Practical Considerations in Choosing a Forum
Beyond the strict Section 9(3) efficacy test, parties often weigh practical factors: the specific court's typical timeline for urgent applications versus the tribunal's own availability and familiarity with the dispute, whether the relief sought needs to bind a non-signatory, and whether preserving the option of subsequent court supervision (for instance, easier execution processes in some contexts) makes a difference to the specific relief being sought. There is no universal answer: the right choice depends on the stage of the arbitration, the urgency and nature of the relief, and the parties involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I approach a court for interim relief after the arbitral tribunal is constituted?
Section 9(3) generally bars a fresh application once the tribunal is constituted, unless the court finds the Section 17 remedy may not be efficacious in the circumstances.
Are tribunal orders under Section 17 enforceable in the same way as court orders?
Yes: since the 2015 amendment, a Section 17 order is deemed to be a court order for enforcement purposes.
Can a party seek interim relief before the arbitral tribunal is even constituted?
Yes: Section 9 is available before arbitral proceedings begin, allowing urgent court relief before a tribunal exists.
Which forum is generally faster for urgent relief?
It depends on the specific court's pendency and the tribunal's own availability: before a tribunal exists, court relief under Section 9 is the only option.
References & Further Reading
This article references the following statutory provisions. It is educational content, not advice on any specific dispute.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 9 and 17: interim measures by court and by arbitral tribunal.
- See our Arbitration & Dispute Resolution practice area and recent Legal News on Section 9 applications post-constitution for further reading.