Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can an appellant be directed to deposit, pending a Section 34 challenge, an amount it had already lawfully realised by encashing bank guarantees under an arbitral award passed entirely in its favour?

Yes, where the Arbitral Tribunal never actually decided the issue of discharge of the bank guarantees, no counter-claim was filed, and there was no finding that the mobilisation advance against which the guarantees were furnished remained unutilised, permitting the appellant to retain the amount pending the Section 34 challenge would unjustly enrich it, justifying a direction to deposit the amount with the Registry in an interest-bearing fixed deposit.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.9 — s.34 — Post-award interim relief — Maintainability at instance of Award Debtor — Bank guarantee — Unjust enrichment — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.9 — Post-award petition by unsuccessful party is maintainable — Held: A petition under Section 9 at the post-award stage, filed by a party with no enforceable award in its favour, is maintainable in law, though the threshold for interim relief is correspondingly higher. (¶18, 19) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.9 — Continuation of interim protection in rare and compelling cases — Held further: In rare and compelling cases, an unsuccessful party may invoke Section 9 to seek continuation of existing interim protection, such as a restraint on invoking a bank guarantee, to prevent irreparable prejudice and preserve the efficacy of its Section 34 challenge. (¶19) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.9 — Prima facie case, balance of convenience, reasonable expedition — Held further: Grant of interim relief under Section 9 is governed by the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, likelihood of irreparable harm, and whether the applicant approached the court with reasonable expedition. (¶20, 21, 22, 23) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.9 — Deposit direction upheld to prevent unjust enrichment — Held further: Since no counter-claim was filed and the discharge of the bank guarantees was never decided, retaining the encashed amount pending the Section 34 challenge would unjustly enrich the appellant. The deposit direction is upheld and the appeal dismissed. (¶26, 27)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd v. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India