Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interim measures before, during, and after the award but before enforcement — a window parties often forget exists. In Facor Alloys Ltd. v. Rajadhiraj Tirupani Vinayak Natraj Pvt. Ltd., FAO(OS) (COMM) 295/2026, decided on 29 October 2026, a Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed in limine an appeal against a Single Judge's order appointing two Local Commissioners to inventory goods that an arbitral award had declared returnable to the award-holder. Neither pending execution at Visakhapatnam nor a bailiff's earlier inventory barred the Delhi court's Section 9 jurisdiction — and Section 47 CPC, the appellant's mainstay, was held to have no application to an order that determined nothing.
The award and the standoff
An award of 31 July 2025 settled a conversion-arrangement dispute both ways: the respondent was declared entitled to the return of its raw materials, finished products and goods lying at the appellant\'s plant, and awarded ₹2.17 crore for a transformer; the appellant was awarded ₹18.87 crore in conversion charges plus a smaller post-termination sum, with 9% interest and a right of adjustment. The goods, however, stayed where they were. The award-holder\'s requests to inspect them in July and August 2026 went nowhere, and it moved the Delhi High Court under Section 9 for inventorisation. The Single Judge appointed two Local Commissioners on 14 October 2026; the owner of the premises appealed under Section 37(1)(b).
The three objections, and how they fell
The doctrinal core
Two propositions carry the judgment. First, the word "information" in Section 9(1)(ii)(c) is compendious: the particulars of goods — their identity, condition, quantity and commingling — are information the court may order to be ascertained in aid of preservation. Second, no restraint on Section 9 powers during execution can be introduced by judicial fiat where the statute contains none. Together they make the post-award window genuinely useful: an award-holder facing stonewalling need not wait for the executing court\'s timetable to secure the subject matter against dissipation or deterioration.
Using the post-award window well
- Document the denial: the inspection requests of July and August 2026, met with silence, were the factual foundation of the relief. Make the record before moving the court.
- Ask for information-type measures: inventories, inspections, preservation of records and samples sit squarely within Section 9(1)(ii)(c) and are harder to resist than injunctions.
- Coordinate with execution: relief that preserves and records does not collide with the executing court; relief that distributes or adjudicates might. Frame accordingly.
- Think twice before appealing: an in limine dismissal with a Division Bench\'s reasoned endorsement strengthens the order you challenged. Section 37 appeals against discretionary preservation orders need a jurisdictional error, not displeasure.
Practice note: Award-holders whose awards concern physical goods should treat inventorisation as the first enforcement step, not an afterthought — commingling and deterioration arguments grow stronger for the resisting party with every month the goods sit unverified.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a party seek Section 9 relief after the arbitral award?
Yes. Section 9(1) expressly covers the period after the award is made but before it is enforced under Section 36. The Division Bench, applying the Supreme Court's recent recognition that even an unsuccessful party may seek post-award interim measures to preserve the subject matter, held the jurisdiction continues until actual enforcement — pendency of execution proceedings is not enforcement.
Does Section 47 CPC bar a Section 9 petition once execution begins?
No. Section 47 concerns questions to be determined by the executing court, and "determination" connotes finality. An order appointing Local Commissioners to prepare an inventory determines nothing between the parties; it only secures information, which falls comfortably within Section 9(1)(ii)(c).
What could the Local Commissioners do under the order?
Inventory the goods and note whether they are identifiable or commingled; photograph and videograph; verify against weighment, stock and movement records; draw sealed representative samples subject to further orders; record any obstruction or shortage; and seek police assistance if needed — reporting within four weeks.
When will a Section 37 appeal against such an order succeed?
Rarely. Appeals under Section 37(1)(b) against discretionary interim measures face a narrow review; where the Single Judge acted within jurisdiction and gave reasons — here, the award-holder had been denied inspection despite the award recognising its entitlement — the Division Bench will not reweigh the discretion. This appeal was dismissed in limine.