In high-value commercial arbitrations, timing often matters more than the final award. A well-drafted claim can still fall flat if assets disappear, contracts are terminated overnight, or sensitive information is misused before the tribunal even settles down.
This is where interim reliefs step in. Not as a formality, but as a real tool to protect value while the arbitration runs its course. In India, Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 remain the two most relied-upon routes for such relief. Yet, many parties still treat them mechanically. File early. Ask broadly. Hope for the best.
That approach rarely works in serious commercial disputes.
This piece looks at how Sections 9 and 17 actually operate in practice, how courts and tribunals think about them, and what makes an interim application effective in high-stakes arbitrations.
Why Interim Reliefs Matter More Than Ever
Commercial arbitrations today are rarely limited to breach claims alone. They involve:
- Complex shareholder arrangements
- Ongoing supply and infrastructure contracts
- Escrow mechanisms and performance securities
- Cross-border assets and bank accounts
In such disputes, waiting for the final award can mean irreversible loss. Once money is siphoned off or a business relationship collapses, even a favourable award may offer little comfort.
Interim reliefs are meant to prevent that outcome. Their purpose is simple. Preserve the subject matter of the dispute. Maintain the balance until rights are finally decided.
Courts and tribunals are clear on this objective. What they are cautious about is misuse.
Section 9 and Section 17: Same Objective, Different Routes
At a basic level, both provisions serve the same goal. They allow a party to seek interim protection in aid of arbitration. The difference lies in who grants that relief and when.
Section 9: Court-Supervised Protection
Section 9 allows parties to approach courts for interim measures:
- Before the arbitration begins
- During the arbitration
- After the award but before enforcement
Courts can grant a wide range of reliefs, including injunctions, asset protection orders, and directions to secure amounts in dispute.
However, recent amendments and judicial trends show a clear message. Section 9 is not meant to bypass the tribunal once it is in place.
Courts increasingly ask one key question. Why should the court step in when the tribunal can handle it?
Section 17: Tribunal-Led Interim Measures
Section 17 empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim relief once it is constituted. After the 2015 amendment, tribunal orders under Section 17 are enforceable in the same manner as court orders.
This changed the balance significantly.
Today, tribunals are no longer seen as weaker alternatives to courts for interim protection. In fact, many commercial courts actively push parties towards Section 17 once the tribunal is operational.
Choosing the Right Forum Is a Strategic Decision
The choice between Sections 9 and 17 should never be automatic. It depends on timing, urgency, and the nature of relief sought.
When Section 9 Makes Sense
Approaching the court under Section 9 still works best when:
- There is extreme urgency before the tribunal is formed
- Immediate asset protection is required
- The respondent is likely to frustrate the process
- Relief is needed against third parties
Courts retain wider coercive powers, especially in cases involving banks, registrars, or non-signatories.
That said, courts are careful. If arbitration is not commenced promptly after a pre-arbitration Section 9 order, relief can be vacated.
When Section 17 Is the Better Route
Once the tribunal is in place, Section 17 is often the smarter choice:
- Tribunals understand the dispute in depth
- Applications are heard faster
- There is less procedural resistance
- Orders are tailored to the commercial context
In high-value disputes, tribunals are increasingly proactive in granting focused, workable interim directions rather than broad restraints.
What Actually Persuades Courts and Tribunals
Many interim applications fail not because the law is against the applicant, but because the relief is poorly framed.
Courts and tribunals look for substance, not noise.
A Clear Case of Urgency
Urgency cannot be assumed. It must be shown.
Merely stating that assets may be dissipated is not enough. Applicants must demonstrate real risk through conduct, documents, or past behaviour.
Concrete facts carry weight. Vague apprehensions do not.
A Strong Prima Facie Case
Interim relief is not a mini trial, but decision-makers still assess whether the claim is credible.
This does not require proving the entire case. It requires showing that the claim is not speculative or exaggerated.
Well-structured pleadings matter here.
Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm
Courts and tribunals weigh the impact of the relief on both sides.
An order that freezes all operations of a business is unlikely unless the facts are extreme. Reliefs that preserve value without crippling operations are more likely to be granted.
Applicants who propose reasonable safeguards often fare better than those who ask for sweeping restraints.
Common Mistakes That Undermine Interim Applications
Even experienced parties make avoidable errors when seeking interim relief.
Some of the most frequent ones include:
- Seeking final reliefs at an interim stage
- Using standard templates without dispute-specific tailoring
- Overloading applications with unnecessary legal citations
- Ignoring enforceability at the drafting stage
Interim reliefs are practical tools. They should read like problem-solving requests, not academic essays.
Asset Protection Orders: A High-Value Priority
In large commercial disputes, asset protection is often the real objective behind interim reliefs.
Courts are cautious about granting blanket freezing orders. However, targeted directions are increasingly accepted, such as:
- Disclosure of assets
- Maintenance of minimum balances
- Restrictions on specific transfers
- Escrow arrangements
The key lies in precision. The more focused the relief, the higher its chances of success.
Injunctions Against Contract Termination and Parallel Actions
Another common area involves restraining contract termination or parallel proceedings.
Tribunals and courts generally intervene where:
- Termination defeats the arbitration itself
- Parallel actions undermine the arbitral process
- There is clear abuse of contractual power
However, interim relief is rarely granted to rewrite contracts or suspend commercial risks entirely.
Reliefs that preserve status quo, rather than alter it, are viewed more favourably.
Enforcement Is Part of the Strategy
An interim order is only as effective as its enforcement.
With Section 17 orders now enforceable like court orders, parties must still plan for compliance challenges. Reliefs involving banks, registrars, or foreign assets may require additional steps.
Drafting reliefs with enforceability in mind is critical. Vague directions invite resistance. Clear, executable orders reduce friction.
The Bigger Picture: Interim Reliefs as Leverage
In high-value arbitrations, interim reliefs often shape the dispute more than the final award.
A well-timed injunction or asset protection order can:
- Bring parties to the negotiating table
- Prevent escalation of losses
- Set the tone for procedural discipline
At the same time, aggressive or poorly thought-out applications can harden positions and delay resolution.
Strategic restraint matters as much as legal strength.
Closing Thoughts
Sections 9 and 17 are not mere procedural tools. They are strategic levers that can protect value, control risk, and maintain balance in complex commercial arbitrations.
What makes interim reliefs work is not how forcefully they are sought, but how thoughtfully they are planned.
For parties involved in high-stakes disputes, the real question is not whether to seek interim relief, but how to use it with precision, timing, and purpose.
When done right, interim reliefs do exactly what they are meant to do. They buy time. They preserve value. And they keep arbitration meaningful while the dispute unfolds.
