Ad-Interim Injunctions Are Not Immune From Appeal When They Impact Rights Significantly: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"An Ad-Interim Order Under Section 9 Is Still A Measure Under Arbitration Act – The Appeal Lies As Of Right, Not By Exception", Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a critical ruling clarifying the maintainability of appeals against ad-interim orders passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Division Bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that an ad-interim injunction granted under Section 9 is indeed a “measure” within the meaning of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act and hence appealable as a matter of right, not by exception.

“This Court finds that the ad-interim order directing parties to maintain status quo ante is a measure granted under Section 9 and thus squarely falls within the ambit of Section 37(1)(b). The office objection questioning the maintainability of the appeal is unsustainable,” observed the Bench, overruling the objection and directing that the appeal be numbered.

Status Quo Ante Is A Legal Consequence, Not Mere Procedure – Even Interim Measures Have Legal Effect

The controversy arose when the Commercial Court, while hearing petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the respondent companies, passed an ad-interim injunction on 19.12.2025 directing the parties to “maintain status quo ante” until the next hearing date. The Visakhapatnam Port Authority, aggrieved by the interim relief, approached the High Court under Section 37(1)(b) read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The High Court noted that while the matter was still pending before the Commercial Court, the order passed was in fact “a grant of interim injunction”, falling under Section 9(1)(d) and (e), and thereby triggering Section 37(1)(b).

“We are of the view that the order dated 19.12.2025 is an order granting one of the measures under Section 9 i.e., interim injunction. So on the face of it, the order is covered under Section 37(1)(b),” the Court affirmed, adding that “status quo ante” is not a mere procedural instruction but a form of injunctive relief with substantive consequences.

"Commercial Appellate Jurisdiction Is Not Barred From Entertaining Ad-Interim Appeals In Extraordinary Circumstances"

The Court delved into the legislative scheme of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and clarified that while it does not create a new or independent right of appeal, it facilitates appellate jurisdiction where such right exists under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act or Order 43 CPC.

“Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act only channels existing appeal rights and is not a source of jurisdiction in itself,” the Bench clarified.

In reaching this conclusion, the Bench distinguished the view taken by the Meghalaya High Court in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd., which had held that ad-interim orders are not appealable under Section 37(1)(b). Andhra Pradesh High Court categorically disagreed:

“With respect, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the Meghalaya High Court... We hold that an ad-interim order, if it constitutes a measure under Section 9 or falls within Order 43 CPC, is appealable under Section 37.”

The Bench also drew strength from the principles laid down in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices (2004) and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, AIR 2000 SC 3032, wherein the Courts recognized that ad-interim injunctions, particularly when not promptly heard or vacated, can be appealed in “extraordinary circumstances.”

The Court echoed the Supreme Court’s rationale that, “failure to decide the application or vacate the ex parte injunction shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be the final order on the application.”

Appeal Against Interim Order May Not Be Routine, But Is Legally Sustainable When Rights Are Affected

Though the Court acknowledged that appeals against ad-interim orders are not to be entertained as a matter of course, it emphasized that where the interim order significantly affects parties’ rights or delays justice, the appeal is permissible.

“It is only an extraordinary circumstance under which the aggrieved person can prefer an appeal against an ad-interim injunction order,” said the Bench, reinforcing that such an appeal should not be dismissed merely for being premature.

The Bench thus harmonized the provisions of Section 104 CPC, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act to affirm the maintainability of the appeal.

Ad-Interim Orders Under Section 9 Are Appealable If They Constitute ‘Measures’

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the impugned ad-interim injunction order of 19.12.2025 was not immune from appellate scrutiny and fulfilled the conditions under both Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

“The appeal is maintainable... Let the appeal be numbered,” ordered the Bench, while posting the matter for further hearing on 30.12.2025 and keeping the stay application open for consideration on that date.

The decision not only clarifies the appellate scope under the Arbitration Act but also ensures that parties are not left remediless in the face of potent interim reliefs granted without full adjudication.

Date of Decision: 23rd December 2025