Section 9 interim relief requires a binding arbitration agreement, and refusal does not bar independent civil remedies.

Section 9 interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable only where the dispute is referable to an arbitration agreement binding the concerned parties. Applying Section 7 and the approach approved in Sukanya Holdings, the court held that relief could not be invoked against respondents not covered by the arbitration agreement, and the Section 9 application was not maintainable. The court also clarified that observations made while rejecting Section 9 relief were confined to maintainability and did not bar the appellant from pursuing independent civil remedies in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in the absence of an arbitration agreement with all the respondents. (ii) Whether the observations made while rejecting Section 9 relief would preclude the appellant from pursuing remedies in a civil suit.

Issue (i): Analysis: The application under Section 9 is maintainable only where the underlying dispute is referable to an arbitration agreement. The findings of the Single Judge that no arbitration agreement existed between the appellant and certain respondents were based on the correct interpretation of Section 7 of the Act and were consistent with the principle that arbitration cannot be invoked against parties who are not bound by an arbitration agreement. The conclusion was also supported by the approach approved in Sukanya Holdings, which emphasises the limits of arbitration proceedings where necessary parties are outside the arbitration agreement.

Conclusion: The application under Section 9 was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Analysis: The Single Judge had expressly observed that the findings would not preclude the appellant from seeking remedies under appropriate law. Those observations were confined to the question of maintainability under Section 9 and did not create any bar against independent proceedings on the merits of the dispute.

Conclusion: The appellant was not barred from pursuing remedies in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Section 9 order did not survive, and the appellant was left free to pursue appropriate civil remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 relief is unavailable where there is no arbitration agreement binding the concerned parties, and a finding on Section 9 maintainability does not, by itself, bar independent civil proceedings.

---