Legal Analysis: Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi

Citation: 2026 INSC 415
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Manmohan & Justice Manoj Misra 
Judgment Author: Justice Manmohan
Date of Decision: April 24, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Section 136 of the Constitution of India, arising from multiple SLPs; the Court decided a substantial question of law on the maintainability of Section 9 petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage by an unsuccessful party.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The Supreme Court resolved a conflict among High Courts on whether a party that has lost in arbitral proceedings (i.e., has no enforceable award in its favour) can maintain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage (after the award is made but before it is enforced under Section 36). The Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Karnataka High Courts had held that such a party cannot seek interim relief under Section 9, as the provision is meant only to protect the “fruits of the award” for the successful party. The Telangana, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts had taken a contrary view. The Supreme Court overruled the former line of authority, holding that the plain language of Section 9 permits “a party” (defined as any party to the arbitration agreement) to apply for interim measures at three stages – before, during, or after the arbitral award (but before its enforcement). The Court held that the expression “a party” cannot be contextually modulated based on the outcome of the arbitration. The Court also noted that the 2019 amendments, the power of courts to modify awards under Section 34 (following Gayatri Balasamy), and the need to prevent irreparable prejudice pending challenge under Section 34, all support the maintainability of such petitions. However, the Court clarified that the threshold for granting interim relief to an unsuccessful party would be higher, and such relief should be granted only in rare and compelling cases.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi (with connected appeals) Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29972/2015, SLP (C) No. 26876/2014, and SLP (C) No. 11139/2020 Bench Justice Manmohan (Single Judge) Date of Decision April 24, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 415 Appeal From Orders of Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court, and other High Courts (consolidated)

2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act): Section 9 (interim measures by court – three stages: before, during, or after award but before enforcement), Section 2(h) (definition of “party” – a party to an arbitration agreement), Section 34 (application for setting aside arbitral award – court can modify award post- Gayatri Balasamy), Section 36 (enforcement of award and stay thereof), Section 37 (appealable orders), Section 43(4) (exclusion of time in limitation), Section 5 (extent of judicial intervention).

• UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Article 9 (interim measures only before or during arbitral proceedings – no post‑award stage).

• Arbitration Act, 1940 (repealed): Section 18 (interim measures confined to successful party for enforcement).

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.