The Supreme Court on September 14, 2022 in the matter of Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited held that the power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) should not ordinarily be exercised ignoring the basic principles of procedural law as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 (“CPC”), but the technicalities of CPC cannot prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice.

In the instant matter an appeal was filed against an order passed by Commercial Division of the High Court allowing an application filed by the Respondent under Section 9 of the A&C Act which provides that a party may apply to a court for an interim measure or protection to (i) secure the amount in dispute in the arbitration; or (ii) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be just and convenient, and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of any proceedings before it. It was contented by the Appellant that to grant discretionary interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the court would have to satisfy itself that the applicant for interim relief has a bona fide and strong claim and that the court erred in not considering the requisites of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the CPC for grant of interim relief.

The court observed that a court is not strictly bound by the provisions of the CPC and the powers of a court under Section 9 of the A&C Act are wider than the powers under the provisions of the CPC. It was further observed that

“In deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot ignore the basic principles of the CPC. At the same time, the power of the Court to grant relief is not curtailed by the rigours of every procedural provision in the CPC. In exercise of its powers to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not strictly bound by the provisions of the CPC.. While it is true that the power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not ordinarily be exercised ignoring the basic principles of procedural law as laid down in the CPC, the technicalities of CPC cannot prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice. It is well settled that procedural safeguards, meant to advance the cause of justice cannot be interpreted in such manner, as would defeat justice.”

Thus, the court held that if a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the court exercising power under Section 9 of the A&C Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.