Interim measures under Section 9 of Arbitration Act: Can relief be denied to a losing claimant post award-
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Sierra Constructions v. Padma Mahadev held that a "losing" party in an intervention isn't qualified for conjure Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for post-grant break measures. The question in Sierra Constructions emerged from a Section 9 continuing started by a losing inquirer in a discretion. Indeed, even as a test to the honor under Section 34 of the Act was forthcoming under the steady gaze of a business court, the respondent had endeavored to disperse the topic of the assertion post-grant. The candidate was denied between time help by the Karnataka High Court. To show up at this tracking down, the High Court depended on the perspective on the Bombay High Court in Dirk India v. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited.
Section 9 accommodates award of interval measures for insurance of the topic of mediation "previously", "during" and whenever "after" the death of the honor. The language in Section 9 alludes to "party", which is characterized evidently in Section 2 (h) of the Act as involved with the discretion understanding. While deciphering Section 9, Dirk India contemplated that a court practicing power under Section 34 has no ability to adjust an honor and that it can either maintain or save an honor overall. Depending on a wanderer perception of the Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc v. Consume Standard Co. Ltd, the Bombay High Court held,
(a) " Where an arbitral case has been dismissed by the arbitral council, the court under Section 34 may either excuse the issue with the arbitral honor or in exercise of its purview put away the honor."
(b) "the saving of an arbitral honor dismissing a case doesn't bring about the case which was dismissed by the referee being proclaimed because of the judgment of the court in a request under Section 34"