---
title: "Unsuccessful Party Can Invoke Section 9 Post-Award: Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting High Court Views in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi"
date: 2026-04-29
author: "Supriya Bhosale"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/arbitration-and-conciliation/losing-party-to-seek-section-9-relief/
---

# Unsuccessful Party Can Invoke Section 9 Post-Award: Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting High Court Views in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi

Posted On - 29 April, 2026 •

By - [Supriya Bhosale](https://www.indialaw.in/people/supriya-bhosale/ "Posts by Supriya Bhosale") and [Riya Rajbhar](https://www.indialaw.in/author/riya-rajbhar/ "Posts by Riya Rajbhar")

[![Harvard Law School degree with handshake representing achievement and professional agreement.](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/8112119.jpeg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/8112119.jpeg)

The decision of the Supreme Court in *Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi*[1](#418912fc-fa20-44c2-be61-54ca335d78de) marks a significant clarification in the jurisprudence surrounding interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court was confronted with a narrow but important question of law, namely whether a party that has failed in arbitral proceedings can nonetheless seek interim measures after the award has been rendered but before it is enforced. This issue had generated conflicting judicial opinions across various High Courts, thereby necessitating authoritative resolution.

At the heart of the controversy lay the interpretation of the phrase “a party” as employed in Section 9. Certain High Courts had adopted a restrictive reading, effectively limiting the availability of post award interim relief to the successful party on the reasoning that such relief is intended to secure the fruits of the arbitral award. The Supreme Court rejected this approach as inconsistent with both the text and the scheme of the statute. It emphasized that the legislature, in defining “party” under Section 2(1)(h), made no distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party. To read such a limitation into Section 9 would amount to impermissible judicial legislation rather than interpretation.

The Court further situated Section 9 within the broader architecture of the Act. It noted that the provision explicitly permits recourse to interim measures at three stages, before the commencement of arbitration, during its pendency, and after the award but prior to enforcement. This tripartite structure reflects a legislative intent to ensure continuity of protection throughout the dispute resolution process. Importantly, the Indian statute goes beyond the UNCITRAL Model Law by expressly including the post award stage, thereby indicating a deliberate expansion of judicial powers to grant interim relief. The absence of any qualification restricting such relief to the award holder reinforces the conclusion that all parties remain entitled to approach the court.

A central concern addressed by the Court was the potential injustice that would arise if an unsuccessful party were denied access to Section 9. The arbitral award is not necessarily final in practical terms, as it remains subject to challenge under Section 34 and may even be modified in certain circumstances. The Court referred to its recent jurisprudence recognizing that awards may be severed or altered, thereby affecting the ultimate rights of the parties. In such a scenario, denying interim protection could render the challenge proceedings illusory, particularly where there is a risk of dissipation of assets or irreversible prejudice. The law cannot countenance a situation where a party is left without any mechanism to preserve its rights pending judicial review.

Equally significant is the Court’s delineation of the distinct functions performed by Sections 9, 34 and 36 of the Act. While Sections 34 and 36 deal with the validity and enforceability of the arbitral award, Section 9 operates in a different sphere altogether by safeguarding the subject matter of the dispute. The availability of remedies under Sections 34 or 36 does not negate the need for interim protection, as those provisions do not empower the court to secure the underlying assets or rights in dispute. The Court thus rejected the argument that Section 9 should be read in a restrictive manner to preserve the finality of arbitral awards.

In disapproving earlier precedents such as *Dirk India*, the Court identified a fundamental flaw in the assumption that post award interim relief is solely concerned with protecting the fruits of the award. It clarified that the statutory language refers more broadly to securing the subject matter of arbitration or the amount in dispute. This wider formulation cannot be curtailed by judicial interpretation. The Court reiterated the settled principle that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain meaning, and courts must refrain from introducing limitations that the legislature has consciously omitted.

At the same time, the judgment reflects a balanced approach by recognizing that permitting unsuccessful parties to invoke Section 9 may raise concerns of misuse. To address this, the Court underscored that the grant of interim relief remains discretionary and is governed by established equitable principles, including the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable harm. It observed that the threshold for granting relief to an unsuccessful party would necessarily be higher and that such relief should be confined to rare and compelling circumstances where denial would result in manifest injustice.

The ruling ultimately affirms a more inclusive and purposive interpretation of Section 9, aligning it with the overarching objective of the Act to facilitate fair and effective dispute resolution. By recognizing that even a losing party may, in appropriate cases, require interim protection, the Court has ensured that the arbitral process remains meaningful and that subsequent judicial remedies are not rendered nugatory. This decision not only resolves the divergence in judicial opinion but also strengthens the integrity of arbitration as a viable alternative to traditional litigation by reinforcing the availability of comprehensive procedural safeguards.

For further details write to [contact@indialaw.in](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)

1. 2026 INSC 415 [↩︎](#418912fc-fa20-44c2-be61-54ca335d78de-link)

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/arbitration-and-conciliation/losing-party-to-seek-section-9-relief//pdf/)

[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/alternative-dispute-resolution/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---