Section 9 After Award: The Supreme Court Settles the Debate in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi

In a significant decision delivered on 24 April 2026 in Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorised Representative v. Haresh N. Sanghavi (2026 INSC 415), a Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan held that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 remains available at the post-award stage even to a party that lost in arbitration. The Court answered the core question in the affirmative: a petition under Section 9, filed after an award but before enforcement, is maintainable by “any party to an arbitration agreement,” including an unsuccessful party. It also held that the contrary views of the Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts do not lay down good law, while the contrary positions of the Telangana, Gujarat, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts reflect the correct statutory position. 

The Court’s reasoning is anchored in the text of the statute. Section 9 uses the expression “a party,” and Section 2(h) defines that phrase as “a party to an arbitration agreement.” The judgment holds that neither provision draws any distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful party, and that it would amount to judicial amendment to read in such a limitation depending on who won the arbitration. The Court also emphasised that post-award interim relief may be necessary in real situations where the subject matter is at risk of dissipation, where there was no proper notice, or where the award is prima facie tainted by fraud or corruption. 

The ruling also gains force from the Court’s recognition of the changing Section 34 landscape. The Bench noted that Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited had recently recognised a limited power to modify an award in appropriate circumstances, which weakens the old assumption that a post-award challenge can only end in an award being either wholly sustained or wholly set aside. In that setting, the Court said, an unsuccessful party cannot be left remediless during the pendency of its challenge.

At the same time, the Court was careful not to open the floodgates. It expressly said that the threshold for grant of relief to an unsuccessful party will be higher, and that courts should exercise “care, caution and circumspection” when dealing with such applications. The Court went further and said that, in rare and compelling cases, post-award Section 9 relief may be justified to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of challenge proceedings. 

For years, a party that lost in arbitration and wished to challenge the award under Section 34 found itself in an uncomfortable position - the subject matter of the dispute could dissipate during the pendency of the challenge, yet courts following Dirk India would turn it away at the Section 9 door. The Supreme Court has now shut that anomaly down.

The reasoning is refreshingly straightforward. Section 9 says “a party.” Section 2(h) defines that as “a party to an arbitration agreement.” Nothing in either provision qualifies this by outcome. The Court rightly held that reading “a party” as “only the successful party” at the post-award stage is not interpretation - it is amendment, and that is the Parliament’s job.

Two further points strengthen the ruling. India consciously extended Section 9 beyond the UNCITRAL Model Law to cover the post-award, pre-enforcement window. When Parliament did so, it attached no rider about who could knock on that door. And since Gayatri Balasamy now permits courts to modify awards - not merely uphold or set aside them - the foundational premise of Dirk India that only the winner has anything worth protecting has lost its footing.

That said, the Court was careful. The threshold for actually granting relief to a losing party is higher. “Care, caution and circumspection” are the Court’s own words. Relief is reserved for rare and compelling situations — fraud, risk of dissipation, continuation of existing interim protection - not as a matter of course.

Whether this enhances procedural fairness or invites tactical litigation will depend entirely on how strictly courts hold that line. We will see interesting times ahead in this area of law.

Sahil Narang, Partner at Khaitan & Co.

By extending post-award relief to unsuccessful parties in narrow, justified cases, the ruling prevents irreparable prejudice while keeping statutory safeguards intact. It places real fairness above concerns of hypothetical misuse. That said, post-award litigation from unsuccessful parties will likely rise. Courts must therefore distinguish genuine applications from tactical ones and deal with them accordingly.

Prashant Kumar, Partner at Dua Associates

Home Care Retail Marts v. Haresh N Sangavi case signals an important expansion of post-award procedure beyond traditional finality of award principles, raising questions about how far such judicial intervention should extend in a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. While the judgments promotes procedural fairness, its compatibility with India’s image as an arbitration-friendly seat will depend on disciplined application consistent with the minimum judicial intervention principle under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring that post-award remedies do not undermine award finality or invite excessive interference.

Dr. Akash Gupta, Associate Professor and Assistant Director CADR, Jindal Global Law School

For arbitration practitioners, the practical takeaway is clear: Section 9 is no longer a winner’s-only remedy after an award. A losing party that is pursuing a Section 34 challenge may now, in the right case, seek interim protection to preserve the dispute’s subject matter or to prevent irreparable prejudice while the challenge remains pending. The judgment strengthens access to interim relief, but it does not lower the substantive bar for obtaining it. 

This makes the decision important not only as a textual interpretation of Section 9, but also as a case about procedural fairness in post-award arbitration. The Court has resolved a long-standing split across High Courts and brought clarity to a space that had become strategically uncertain. The next phase will be about application: how rigorously courts separate genuine protection cases from tactical post-award manoeuvres.