Arbitration Act | Once Arbitral Tribunal Is Constituted And Hearing Underway, Final Call On Interim Relief Must Be Taken By Tribunal: Supreme Court

 "Times without number, this Court and several High Courts have on the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, even allowed orders made under Section 9, to be subject to further orders that the Tribunal may make under Section 17." Supreme Court, in an important ruling, held that once an arbitral tribunal is duly constituted and deep into arbitral hearings, the determination of interim protective reliefs should appropriately be relegated to the arbitral tribunal rather than being independently fashioned under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli observed that in such circumstances, the arbitral tribunal remains the best judge of any interim measure that may have to be crafted between contesting commercial parties.

The dispute arose out of an arbitral reference governed by the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Association Rules, 2025 (FOSFA Rules), wherein the arbitral tribunal was constituted on November 17, 2025. Sunfield Global PTE Limited approached the Bombay High Court under Section 9 read with Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking urgent interim protective measures against Liberty Investments Pvt Ltd. While a Single Judge dismissed the petition as not maintainable in view of the prior constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the Division Bench reversed that view and directed Liberty Investments to furnish a bank guarantee of USD 66,92,500 or suffer an injunction against its properties, prompting the present special leave petition.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court ought to entertain and grant substantive interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after an arbitral tribunal has already been constituted and is actively seized of the arbitral proceedings. The court was also called upon to determine whether the interim arrangement should be relegated to the arbitral tribunal under the applicable arbitral framework.

Arbitral Tribunal Best Placed To Fashion Interim Relief

The bench emphasized the foundational statutory principle underlying arbitral autonomy once a tribunal enters upon reference. The court noted that when an arbitral tribunal is already in the middle of hearing the substantive dispute, the determination of interim security or injunction must be left to the tribunal itself, which has the entire record before it.

Section 9 Orders Can Be Made Subject To Section 17 Powers

Reiterating settled arbitral jurisprudence, the bench highlighted that court-ordered interim protections under Section 9 are frequently made subject to subsequent orders passed by the arbitral forum.

"Times without number, this Court and several High Courts have on the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, even allowed orders made under Section 9, to be subject to further orders that the Tribunal may make under Section 17," the bench observed.

Appreciation Of Evidence And Disputed Liabilities Belongs To Arbitrator

Addressing the rival factual contentions concerning alleged admissions of liability and cross-claims of set-off, the court noted that such disputes are within the exclusive competence of the arbitral panel. The bench observed that the tribunal, being in possession of all communications and pleadings, can effectively determine whether a prima facie case exists.

"Keeping the same principle in mind, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal is already in the middle of a hearing and having proceeded deep into the hearing, the Arbitral Tribunal will be the best judge of any interim relief that may be have to be fashioned," the court stated.

Tribunal Competent To Examine Merits And Prima Facie Grounds

The bench noted that the arbitral panel is fully equipped to evaluate whether there was any categorical admission of debt or whether the petitioner’s claim for set-off possesses prima facie substance warranting or precluding interim security.

"We are also of the opinion that the Arbitral Tribunal with all the documents before it will be able to appreciate whether there was any admission of liability; whether there is any claim inter-alia for set off and whether that claim has prima facie merit and also as to whether there is any case made out for grant of injunctive relief," the bench added.

Interim Protection Extended To Enable Application Before Tribunal

Balancing the equities between the parties, the court refrained from entering into the merits of the dispute while extending the operation of the Division Bench's protective order until November 20, 2026. The respondent was granted liberty to formally apply for interim relief before the arbitral tribunal on or before October 16, 2026, with an opportunity for the petitioner to file its response.

The Supreme Court clarified that if the arbitral tribunal eventually holds that it lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief sought, the High Court’s impugned order would continue to operate, preserving the petitioner’s right to agitate the special leave petition on merits.

The Supreme Court relegated the determination of interim security and injunctive relief to the actively functioning arbitral tribunal while protecting the subject matter until November 20, 2026. This ruling reinforces the judicial policy of minimal court intervention under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reaffirming that once a tribunal is deeply engaged in adjudicating a dispute, it possesses primary authority to fashion interim remedies.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026