Supreme Court Upholds Section 9 Relief for Award Debtor in Rare and Compelling Case, Directs Deposit of Encashed Bank Guarantee Amount

Case Snapshot

Case Name: National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 INSC 828

Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan & Justice Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: August 11, 2026

Area of Law: Arbitration Law, Interim Measures, Bank Guarantees

The Judgment in One Line

Award Debtor who lost in arbitration can invoke Section 9 post-award in rare and compelling cases to prevent unjust enrichment pending Section 34 challenge.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is a significant application of the principles laid down in Home Care Retail Marts v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, which held that an unsuccessful party in arbitration (Award Debtor) can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration Act post-award in rare and compelling cases. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to deposit the encashed bank guarantee amount pending Section 34 proceedings, finding that the case satisfied the higher threshold. The judgment reinforces that Section 9 powers are not confined to Award Holders and that courts can balance equities to prevent unjust enrichment while preserving the efficacy of challenge proceedings.

Background

The appellant and respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for work at the Taj Mahal Bus Stand and Taj Trapezium Zone. The respondent was provided ₹3.5 crores as Mobilisation Advance against bank guarantees. Disputes arose, and arbitration commenced. On December

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