How to Secure Interim Relief and Draft Enforceable Arbitration Clauses in India, Practical Guidance for 2026

Securing interim relief in arbitration in India has become a more nuanced strategic exercise in 2026, driven by recent Supreme Court decisions refining the interplay between Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, evolving Commercial Courts Amendment proposals that reshape procedural timelines, and fresh sectoral guidance from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) affecting infrastructure dispute resolution. For general counsel, project managers and claims lawyers navigating Indian contract disputes, the central question is no longer simply whether interim protection is available, it is which route to take, when, and how to draft clauses that survive enforceability challenges.

This practitioner playbook provides the decision frameworks, model clause language and stepwise enforcement checklists required to act decisively in 2026.

• Decide your route early. Use the seven-factor decision checklist below to determine whether to apply to court under Section 9, the tribunal under Section 17, or both simultaneously.
• Draft clauses that hold up. Incorporate explicit seat designation, governing law, and interim-relief carve-outs using the model clauses provided, eliminating the ambiguity traps that recent judgments have penalised.
• Follow the enforcement playbook. Interim awards from tribunals seated in India are now enforceable as court orders, but the conversion process requires precise procedural steps outlined in this guide.

How Interim Relief Works in India, Courts, Tribunals and the 2026 Context

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides two parallel pathways for parties seeking interim relief in arbitration in India. Section 9 empowers courts to grant interim measures before, during or after arbitral proceedings. Section 17 empowers the arbitral tribunal itself to order interim measures once it is constituted. The 2015 and 2019 amendments significantly strengthened Section 17, giving tribunal-ordered interim measures the same enforceability as court orders, but only where the seat of arbitration is in India, as Section 2(2) confines Part I of the Act to India-seated arbitrations.

The 2026 legislative landscape adds further considerations. The Commercial Courts Amendment proposals aim to streamline interim injunction procedures in commercial disputes, potentially shortening timelines for urgent applications. Simultaneously, MoRTH’s 2026 circular introduces revised dispute-resolution protocols for national highway and infrastructure contracts, encouraging early-stage arbitral mechanisms and discouraging prolonged court intervention. Together, these developments create a more tribunal-friendly environment, but courts remain indispensable where speed or asset-preservation demands immediate executable orders.

Section 9: Court Interim Measures, Tests, Timing and Enforceability

Under Section 9 of the Act, a party may approach the court for interim injunctions, appointment of receivers, preservation of property, or securing the amount in dispute. Courts apply the established three-part test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The critical advantage of Section 9 is that court orders are immediately executable through standard civil enforcement machinery. Following the 2015 amendments, however, once the tribunal is constituted, courts generally decline Section 9 applications unless the tribunal remedy would be inefficacious. This constraint makes timing essential, practitioners should file Section 9 applications before tribunal constitution where urgency demands it.

Section 17: Tribunal Interim Measures, Seat Dependency and Enforcement

Section 17 grants the arbitral tribunal power to order interim measures mirroring those available under Section 9. Since the 2015 amendments, these orders carry the force of a court order and are enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, Section 17 falls under Part I of the Act. Consequently, parties can invoke Section 17 only where the seat of arbitration is in India. For foreign-seated arbitrations, the tribunal’s interim-measure powers derive from the applicable institutional rules or the law of the seat, and enforcement in India requires separate court proceedings. This seat-dependency rule is the single most important factor when drafting arbitration clauses for interim relief in arbitration in India.

Recent Supreme Court Guidance (2024–2026)

The Supreme Court has continued to refine interim-relief doctrine through several important holdings. The Court has reinforced the principle that Section 9 jurisdiction survives even after tribunal constitution where the tribunal’s remedy would be inadequate, for example, where assets are at imminent risk of dissipation. The Court has also clarified that the principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to an absurd extent, affirming that courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral processes to prevent fraud or injustice. Industry observers expect these rulings to encourage a pragmatic approach: parties should not hesitate to invoke court jurisdiction where genuine urgency exists, even in arbitration-friendly environments.

Practical Decision Checklist: When to Go to Court vs Start at the Tribunal

Choosing between court and tribunal for interim relief is rarely binary. The following seven-factor checklist helps contracts teams and claims lawyers make the right call in 2026:

• Urgency. If you need an order within days (asset freezing, injunction against contract termination), the court route under Section 9 is typically faster, especially in Commercial Courts with dedicated benches.
• Seat of arbitration. If the seat is outside India, Section 17 is unavailable under Indian law. Court relief under Section 9 remains the primary option for India-connected disputes.
• Location of assets. Where assets targeted for preservation are in India, court orders offer direct executability. Where assets are scattered internationally, combine institutional emergency arbitration with a Section 9 application.
• Confidentiality. Tribunal proceedings are private; court filings are public. Where commercial sensitivity is paramount, prioritise the tribunal route.
• Enforceability requirements. Court orders under Section 9 are directly executable. Tribunal orders under Section 17 require the seat to be in India for equivalent enforceability.
• Risk of stay of proceedings. Filing in court may invite applications to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Assess whether this tactical risk outweighs the benefit of immediate court protection.
• Cost. Court applications under Section 9 involve court fees and potential adjournments. Tribunal applications may be faster where the tribunal is already constituted, but emergency arbitration fees can be substantial.

Can parties obtain interim relief from Indian courts while arbitration is ongoing? Yes. Section 9 expressly permits court applications at any stage, before commencement, during proceedings or after the award but before enforcement. The practical constraint introduced by the 2015 amendments is that post-constitution applications require demonstrating that the tribunal remedy is inadequate.

Drafting Enforceable Arbitration Clauses in India, Model Clauses and Annotated Tips

The enforceability of an arbitration clause in India depends on precision. Ambiguous seat designation, conflicting forum-selection language and missing interim-relief carve-outs are the three most common drafting failures that lead to contested enforcement. The model clauses below address domestic, cross-border and construction scenarios, the three contexts where interim relief arbitration India disputes are most frequently litigated.

Key Clause Elements to Ensure Arbitration Clause Enforceability in India

• Explicit seat designation. Name the city (not just the country) as the juridical seat. This determines the supervisory court and whether Part I of the Act applies. Example: “The seat of arbitration shall be Mumbai, India.”
• Governing law clause. Separately specify the substantive law of the contract and the law governing the arbitration agreement. Where both are Indian law, state this explicitly to avoid conflicts.
• Interim-relief carve-out. Expressly preserve the right to approach courts for interim measures. This avoids arguments that the arbitration agreement constitutes a waiver of court jurisdiction. Example: “Nothing in this clause shall prevent either party from seeking interim or conservatory measures from any court of competent jurisdiction.”
• Institutional rules reference. Where using institutional arbitration, incorporate the institution’s rules by reference (ICC, SIAC, LCIA, MCIA). This activates emergency arbitration procedures automatically.
• Number and appointment mechanism. Specify the number of arbitrators and the appointment method. Disputes over tribunal constitution delay interim relief.
• Language and venue. While venue is distinct from seat, specifying both reduces procedural disputes.

Clauses to Avoid, Red Flags in 2026 Jurisprudence

• Ambiguous seat language. Clauses stating “arbitration shall be held in [City]” without specifying whether this is seat or venue have been repeatedly challenged. Always use the word “seat” explicitly.
• Conflicting forum-selection clauses. A clause that designates arbitration but simultaneously grants exclusive jurisdiction to a specific court for “all disputes” creates a pathological clause. Courts may refuse to enforce either provision.
• Implied waivers of court relief. Some clauses state that “all disputes shall be resolved exclusively by arbitration.” Without an interim-relief carve-out, this language risks being interpreted as a waiver of the right to approach courts under Section 9.

Model Clause A, Domestic Commercial Contract (Indian Seat):

“Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be finally resolved by arbitration administered by [Institution] in accordance with its rules. The seat of arbitration shall be [City], India. The tribunal shall consist of [one/three] arbitrator(s). The language of the arbitration shall be English. The governing law of this Agreement shall be the laws of India. Nothing herein shall restrict either party’s right to seek interim or conservatory measures from any court of competent jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

Model Clause B, Cross-Border Contract (Indian Seat Option):

“Disputes shall be resolved by arbitration under the [SIAC/ICC] Rules. The juridical seat shall be [Mumbai/New Delhi], India. The substantive law governing this Agreement shall be Indian law. Each party retains the right to apply to courts in India or any other jurisdiction for interim relief, including injunctive and conservatory measures, without such application constituting a waiver of the arbitration agreement.”

Model Clause C, Construction/Infrastructure (Urgent Interim Measures):

“All disputes shall be referred to arbitration under [MCIA/ICC] Rules. The seat shall be [City], India. Given the time-sensitive nature of construction obligations, the parties agree that either party may invoke emergency arbitration procedures under the applicable institutional rules, and may simultaneously apply to the Commercial Court having jurisdiction for interim measures under Section 9 of the Act. The arbitral tribunal, once constituted, shall have full power to grant interim measures under Section 17.”

How to Obtain and Enforce Interim Measures, Stepwise Playbook

This section provides the step-by-step enforcement playbook for both the court and tribunal pathways. Practitioners should treat these as procedural templates to be adapted to the specific facts of each dispute.

Pathway A: Court Route (Section 9)

1. Identify the court with jurisdiction, typically the Commercial Court or High Court at the seat of arbitration, or where the subject matter of the dispute is located.
2. Prepare the Section 9 application supported by an affidavit establishing: (a) the existence of an arbitration agreement, (b) the nature of the interim relief sought, (c) prima facie case, (d) balance of convenience, and (e) irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
3. File for ex parte relief where urgency demands it. Courts may grant ad interim orders without notice to the respondent, subject to a return date.
4. Serve the respondent and attend the returnable hearing. The court will confirm, modify or vacate the interim order.
5. Once the order is passed, it is directly executable through the court’s execution machinery under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Pathway B: Tribunal Route (Section 17)

1. If the tribunal is not yet constituted, invoke emergency arbitration procedures under the applicable institutional rules (where available). File the emergency application with the institution.
2. Once the tribunal is constituted, file a Section 17 application with supporting evidence mirroring the tests applicable under Section 9.
3. The tribunal issues an interim order or interim award.
4. The order is enforceable as a court order under Section 17(2), provided the seat is in India. File the order with the competent court for execution if the opposing party does not comply voluntarily.

Converting an Interim Award into an Executable Order

Where the tribunal grants interim measures in the form of an interim award, the successful party must present the award to the court with jurisdiction for recognition and execution. The process involves filing an execution petition, attaching the original award and the arbitration agreement, and demonstrating that the award falls within the scope of Section 17. Courts have generally treated such applications expeditiously, particularly in Commercial Courts with dedicated arbitration benches. Industry observers expect this process to become further streamlined as the Commercial Courts Amendment proposals take effect. The key practical tip is to file for execution immediately upon non-compliance, delay weakens the urgency argument and risks asset dissipation.

Enforcing Against Assets Abroad and Freezing Orders

Where the respondent’s assets are located outside India, enforcement of Indian court orders requires either: (a) invoking bilateral treaties or reciprocal enforcement arrangements, (b) obtaining a separate freezing order from the courts of the jurisdiction where assets are situated, or (c) relying on the institutional arbitration framework to obtain emergency measures that can be enforced under the New York Convention or the relevant national arbitration law. The most effective strategy where assets are internationally dispersed is to combine an Indian Section 9 order (for domestic assets) with simultaneous emergency arbitration and parallel foreign court applications.

Timing, Evidence and Pleading Strategy for Interim Injunctions in India

The success of any interim injunction application depends as much on preparation as on legal merit. Practitioners seeking interim relief in arbitration in India should assemble the following evidence pack before filing:

• Affidavit of urgency. A detailed affidavit explaining why the matter cannot await the ordinary course of proceedings. Include specific dates, deadlines and the nature of the threatened harm.
• Asset and fraud evidence. Bank statements, property records, corporate filings or communications indicating that the respondent may dissipate assets or frustrate the eventual award.
• Expert valuations. Where the dispute involves property, inventory or specialised assets, independent valuations strengthen the preservation argument.
• Witness statements. Statements from employees, consultants or industry experts demonstrating the irreparable nature of the harm.
• Contract and correspondence. The underlying contract, relevant amendments, and correspondence establishing the dispute and the respondent’s conduct.

When drafting the relief clause in the application, use precise preservation language. Specify exactly what is to be preserved, restrained or secured. Vague requests for “status quo” are less effective than targeted orders freezing specific bank accounts, restraining specific transactions or preserving identified assets. Where applying ex parte, the applicant owes a duty of full and frank disclosure, material non-disclosure can result in vacation of the order and adverse costs.

Institutional Arbitration vs Court, A Decision Comparison for 2026

The choice between institutional arbitration and direct court relief for interim measures depends on the specific risk profile of the dispute. The following comparison captures the key trade-offs practitioners face when evaluating interim relief arbitration India options:

Enforcement Risk Matrix, Likely Outcomes After 2026 Changes

The following risk matrix helps practitioners match their enforcement strategy to the specific risk profile of the dispute. Early indications suggest that the 2026 legislative and judicial developments favour a combined approach for high-value disputes:

Model Clause Pack and Annexures

This article includes three model arbitration clauses (domestic, cross-border and construction/infrastructure) set out in the drafting section above. Practitioners are encouraged to adapt these templates to their specific contractual context, adjusting the institutional rules reference, seat city, and governing law designations as required. The following supporting templates are recommended as companion resources for contracts teams handling interim relief arbitration India matters:

• Model arbitration clause for construction contracts, with MoRTH-compliant dispute-resolution staging and emergency arbitration activation language.
• Sample Section 9 petition template, including standard affidavit format, evidence checklist and relief prayer structure.
• Sample Section 17 application outline, adapted for institutional arbitration proceedings with cross-references to applicable rules.
• Enforcement checklist, step-by-step execution process for converting interim awards to executable court orders.

To connect with experienced arbitration practitioners who can review your clauses or assist with interim-relief applications, find India contract disputes lawyers through the Global Law Experts directory.

Conclusion

The 2026 landscape for interim relief in arbitration in India rewards prepared practitioners. The interplay between Sections 9 and 17 of the Act, reinforced by recent Supreme Court guidance and shaped by the Commercial Courts Amendment proposals and MoRTH’s sectoral circular, demands a strategic approach: choose the right forum based on urgency, seat and asset location; draft arbitration clauses with explicit seat, governing law and interim-relief carve-outs; and follow the enforcement playbook to convert tribunal orders into executable court orders without delay. Contracts teams that build these frameworks into their standard dispute-resolution architecture will be better positioned to protect their interests when disputes arise.

Sources

1. SCC Online, Interim Reliefs in Arbitration: Emerging Judicial Trends
2. Nishith Desai Associates, Interim Reliefs in Arbitral Proceedings
3. International Bar Association, The Enforceability of Interim Orders Under Indian Law
4. AZB & Partners, Harmonizing Reliefs Under Section 9 and Section 17
5. National Law School of India University, Interim Measures of Protection in Aid of Foreign-Seated Arbitrations
6. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Legislative Department, Government of India