Section 9 interim security for arbitral awards can be ordered without first deciding an earlier stay application under Section 36(2).

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits wide interim measures, including security for the awarded amount, at any stage before enforcement of an award. The fact that a stay application under Section 36(2) was filed earlier does not create an absolute rule that it must be heard first; the court may consider both applications arising from the same award together and apply common factors. In a money award, the court may have regard to stay principles applicable to money decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure. On the facts, the absence of a strong prima facie challenge to the award and the size of the award justified deposit/security, and the interim security direction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing deposit of the awarded amount and granting interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, notwithstanding the pending application for stay under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Section 9 confers wide power on the Court to grant interim measures, including securing the amount in dispute, at any stage before enforcement of the award. The mere fact that an application under Section 36(2) was filed earlier did not create any rigid rule that it must be heard first. Both applications arose from the same award, and the Court could consider common factors while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 36. In the facts, there was a large monetary award in favour of the respondent, no cogent prima facie ground for interference with the award, and the High Court was entitled to direct security. The power to grant stay under Section 36 is coupled with the authority to impose conditions, and in a money award the Court must have due regard to the principles governing stay of money decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction requiring deposit/security was upheld, and the challenge to the interim order failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the interim security direction under Section 9 was sustained while the pending Section 34 proceedings were left to be decided expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A court exercising powers under Section 9 may direct security for the awarded amount on a prima facie assessment, and there is no absolute rule that an earlier-filed stay application under Section 36(2) must be decided before a later Section 9 application arising from the same arbitral award.

---