The Calcutta High Court has emphasized that once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, interim relief must be sought before the tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court reaffirmed that courts can only intervene under Section 9 if the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
This decision came in response to an application by Mittal Technopack Private Limited, filed under Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner sought court intervention to secure an interim award of ₹5.85 crore from Ideal Real Estate Private Limited, the respondent. The reliefs requested included directing the respondent to provide security through cash or bank guarantee, restrictions on bank account operations, and orders preventing the disposal of assets and mandating asset disclosures.
“Upon amendment of Section 17… the arbitrator is functus officio regarding the interim award,” argued Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, senior advocate for the petitioner.
He maintained that the arbitrator had lost authority to issue interim protections after passing the interim award, making court intervention necessary. He also referred to an earlier order in which the respondent was directed not to operate certain bank accounts without reserving ₹5.85 crore. Although the Division Bench later recorded a security offer involving two flats and a personal guarantee by a director, the petitioner alleged non-compliance and returned to court.
Opposing the application, the respondent’s counsel, Mr. Rishad Medora, argued that the petition was barred under Section 9(3) of the Act since the arbitration tribunal was already in place. He asserted that all prayers could be addressed by the tribunal. He also explained that the flats offered as security were unencumbered and released from the bank, and that the offer was genuine and made in compliance with court orders.
The Court reviewed the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 9(1), 9(3), 17, and 32, and clarified the legal position.
“The power of the learned arbitrator to pass interim relief is available till the arbitral proceeding continues… Upon termination of the proceedings, the arbitrator becomes functus officio,” noted Justice Shampa Sarkar.
She further observed that Section 9(1) permits courts to grant interim relief post-award but before its enforcement, only when the arbitral tribunal's remedy under Section 17 is ineffective. As per Section 32, arbitration proceedings terminate with the final award or specific orders from the tribunal.
“The contention that the arbitrator becomes functus officio after an interim award is not correct,” the Court stated.
The Court concluded that the application should be made before the arbitrator, especially since the arbitral proceedings were ongoing. It also stated that concerns about the respondent’s conduct could be brought before the tribunal to support the need for interim relief.
The application was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Mittal Technopack Private Limited Vs Ideal Real Estate Private Limited And Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM/413/2025
Judgment Date: 21/05/2025
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv. Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rauth, Adv. Mr. Hareram Singh, Adv. … for petitioner.
Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv. Mr. Romendu Agarwal, Adv. … for respondent no.\1.
Mr. Samriddha Sen, Adv. Ms. Rishika Goyal, Adv. Ms. Sonia Das, Adv. … for respondent No..2
