Interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 protect the subject matter of an arbitration — they do not exist to give an already-secured creditor a second layer of security. That is the message of Axis Finance Limited v. Mohammed Jahangir & Ors., O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 376/2026, decided on 16 October 2026 by Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the Delhi High Court. The lender held a registered mortgage over the secured property, had issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and had taken symbolic possession under Section 13(4). Its petition for further interim protection was dismissed as an attempt at duplicative interim security.
The setting
Axis Finance Limited had lent against a mortgage of immovable property situated in Kolkata. When the account soured, the lender moved along the enforcement track that Parliament built for secured creditors: a demand notice dated 23 January 2026 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, followed by symbolic possession of the secured assets on 9 April 2026 under Section 13(4). With arbitration contemplated under the loan documents, the lender also petitioned the Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim protection — adding a judicial restraint on top of its contractual and statutory security.
The reasoning: necessity, not comfort
Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the petition on a principle that will resonate across lending disputes. Section 9 relief is a response to demonstrated necessity, and the Court found none. Two strands run through the order:
Apprehension is not enough
A "mere apprehension that the Respondents may alienate their assets" cannot justify additional interim relief. The petitioner needed supporting material showing an immediate necessity — and had none.
No duplicative security
With the dues already secured by a mortgage and SARFAESI proceedings pending, the restraints sought "would amount to duplicative interim security" — a doubling-up the Court declined to order.
The Court drew support from a recent Division Bench ruling in the lender’s own earlier litigation — Axis Finance Ltd. v. Rishab Mago, FAO(OS)(COMM) 157/2026 — which upheld the refusal of Section 9 relief where the dues were secured by mortgage and SARFAESI enforcement was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The single-Judge order thus consolidates what is now a consistent Delhi position on the point.
The doctrinal frame
Section 9 petitions are decided on the familiar trinity — prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm — tempered by the principles governing attachment before judgment. A claimant seeking to freeze or secure assets must show that the respondent is acting, or about to act, in a manner designed to defeat the eventual award. For an unsecured claimant, dissipation of the only recoverable assets can be exactly such a showing. A secured creditor stands differently: the mortgage is the protection, and the SARFAESI Act gives it an enforcement engine that needs no interim order. Asking the court for more, without showing that the security itself is threatened or inadequate, inverts the logic of interim relief — it seeks comfort, not protection.
What lenders and borrowers should take from the order
For lenders, the order is a drafting and strategy note. A Section 9 petition filed alongside SARFAESI measures must plead with specificity: valuation evidence showing the security shortfall, documented attempts to alienate unencumbered assets, diversion of receivables, or conduct defeating the enforcement already underway. Boilerplate apprehensions will fail, and a failed Section 9 petition hands the borrower a judicial finding that the lender is adequately secured — a finding with afterlife in the DRT and in settlement talks. For borrowers and guarantors, the order confirms a shield worth raising at the threshold of every lender-side Section 9: where the exposure is mortgage-backed and enforcement is live, the petition should be met with the duplication objection before any contest on the merits of the debt.
The decision also keeps the channels doctrinally clean. The arbitral tribunal remains the forum for the money claim, with Section 17 available for genuinely necessary interim measures once constituted; the SARFAESI process remains the secured creditor’s self-help track, policed by the DRT under Section 17 of that Act. The writ of Section 9 runs between them only where a real, immediate and unprotected risk is shown.
Before filing a Section 9 petition in a secured lending matter, the first document to prepare is not the petition — it is a candid internal note on what the existing security actually covers. If the honest answer is "the exposure", the petition is likely to do more harm than good.
Frequently Asked Questions
What relief was the lender seeking under Section 9?
Axis Finance, which had extended mortgage-backed loan facilities, sought interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act over and above its existing security — essentially restraints protecting its position pending arbitration, grounded in an apprehension that the borrowers might alienate their assets.
Why was the petition dismissed?
The Court held that a mere apprehension that the respondents may alienate their assets does not justify additional interim relief without material showing immediate necessity. Since the dues were already secured by a registered mortgage and SARFAESI enforcement was underway — a Section 13(2) demand notice followed by symbolic possession under Section 13(4) — the relief sought would amount to duplicative interim security.
Does this mean secured lenders can never invoke Section 9?
No. The bar is against duplication, not against secured creditors. Where a lender demonstrates a concrete, immediate threat to assets beyond its security, or shows that the security is inadequate or imperilled, Section 9 remains available. What failed here was a petition resting on apprehension alone, with the mortgage and SARFAESI process already covering the exposure.
How do arbitration and SARFAESI proceedings interact?
They can run in parallel because they serve different functions: arbitration adjudicates the money claim, while SARFAESI enforces the security interest without court intervention. But when a lender asks a court for interim measures, the existence and stage of its SARFAESI enforcement becomes directly relevant to whether equity requires any further protection.