While Bombay High Court (Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 481), Delhi High Court (Nussli Switzerland Ltd. v. Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4834 as well as National Highways Authority of India v. Punjab National Bank, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4810), Madras High Court (A. Chidambaram v. S. Rajagopal, OA No. 843 of 2024) and Karnataka High Court (Smt. Padma Mahadev v. M/s. Sierra Constructions Private Limited, COMAP No. 2 of 2021) have held, a party unsuccessful in Arbitral Proceedings cannot maintain a petition under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Telangana High Court (M/s. Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. National Institute of Tourism & Hospitality Management, 2019 SCC OnLine TS 1765), Gujarat High Court (GAIL (India) Ltd. v. Latin Rasayani Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14836) and Punjab & Haryana High Court (M/s. DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. M/s. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., FAO-CARB-51-2024) have taken a contrary view and held, a party unsuccessful in Arbitral Proceedings can maintain a petition under Section 9.

Court is of view, the statutory framework does not prescribe any qualification that would confine availability of a Post-Award relief under Section 9 solely to Award-Holders. The acceptance of views expressed in Dirk India, Nussli Switzerland Ltd., Padma Mahadev and A. Chidambaram would deprive an unsuccessful party of a right expressly conferred. The meaning of the expression ‘a party’ cannot be contextually modulated or varied depending upon the outcome of Arbitral Proceedings.

– Hon’ble Justice Manmohan, Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29972 of 2015].