अर्बिट्रल ट्रिब्यूनल को सेक्शन 9 आदेश पर अपील का अधिकार नहीं, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया

S. 17 Arbitration Act | Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Section 9 Orders: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

29 Sept 2026 12:45 PM IST

The Supreme Court recently held that a High Court hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an interim order passed under Section 9 cannot, even with the consent of the parties, delegate its appellate authority to the Arbitral Tribunal by directing it to hear the challenge to the Section 9 order under its Section 17 jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

“An Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9.”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had required the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a statutory appeal under Section 37 by treating the appellate proceedings as an application under Section 17.

The Court observed that “the nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same 7 cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.”

The Court agreed with the Union of India's contention that an Arbitral Tribunal, being a creature of the contract, could not exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction vested by statute in the Courts, even by consent of the parties.

The dispute arose from a contract awarded by the Appellant-Union of India to the Respondent Hariom Projects for providing Administrative and Training Infrastructure (Phase-I) at NDA Khadakwasla.

After disputes arose concerning adjustments, payment calculations, and design issues, the respondent invoked arbitration and also approached the District Judge, Pune, under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim protection, including an injunction against cancellation or termination of the contract.

The Section 9 application was dismissed, following which the respondent filed an appeal under Section 37 before the Bombay High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Union terminated the work order. The High Court stayed the termination and subsequently appointed a Sole Arbitrator with the parties' consent.

However, while appointing the Arbitrator, the High Court directed that “the proceedings before this Court shall be remitted to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act.”

The Union challenged this portion of the High Court's order before the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing with the High Court's decision, the Court said that the impugned order to the extent it treated the Arbitral Tribunal's power under Section 17 as interchangeable to the Appellate powers under Section 37 could not be sustained because Sections 9, 17 and 37 operate through different sources of jurisdiction.

The Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal exercising powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9.

Therefore, requiring the Tribunal to examine the subject matter of a Section 37 appeal by treating the appeal as a Section 17 application would impermissibly alter the nature and source of the jurisdiction involved.

“The nature and source of the powers exercised by an appellate Court under Section 37 are distinct from the powers conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 and same cannot be interchanged merely by transmitting or remitting the appellate proceedings to the Tribunal.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was accordingly disposed of by setting aside the Bombay High Court's direction only to the extent that it remitted the Section 37 proceedings to the Arbitral Tribunal and directed their treatment as a Section 17 application.

“…the impugned order cannot be sustained to the extent that it remits the proceedings under Section 37 to the Arbitral Tribunal and directs that they be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside to that limited extent.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Ravindra Kumar, ASG Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Ritik Rathore, Adv. Mr. Devraj Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Rupesh, Adv. Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saurabh Seth, Adv. Mr. Sukrit Seth, AOR Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Adv. Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv. Mr. Sahil Dewani, Adv. Mr. Saket Bansal, Adv. Ms. Devika Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Adv.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News