The Bombay High Court set aside a Section 17 order that had excused a party from producing the very contract said to breach a joint-venture non-compete, holding that a confidentiality clause inside an allegedly offending agreement cannot immunise that agreement from disclosure. A digest of the facts, the holding on confidentiality versus court-directed disclosure, the Section 17 set-aside and remand, and what it means for arbitration practice.
A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the rule in Asian Resurfacing that interim stays lapse automatically after six months. A digest of the holding, the Article 142 limits the Court drew, and what it now means for litigants relying on a High Court stay.
On 24 April 2026, the Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful party in arbitration can invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for interim relief at the post-award stage, pending Section 34 proceedings. The Court rejected the 'fruits of the award' doctrine that had restricted Section 9 to successful parties, reading Section 9's text — 'any party to an arbitration agreement' — to authorise the unsuccessful party to seek interim measures, subject to 'care, caution and circumspection'. The ruling resolves a long-standing High Court conflict and recalibrates the post-award practitioner architecture.
On 10 March 2026, a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court closed a gap that had quietly opened up in Indian arbitration practice: whether a foreign award-creditor who has filed an enforcement petition under Part II loses access to interim relief under Section 9. The judgment is short, the holding is precise, and the practitioner's takeaway is operational.