What Was the Issue Before the Supreme Court?
The dispute arose from a contract awarded to Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. by the Union of India for providing administrative and training infrastructure at NDA Khadakwasla. Disputes subsequently arose between the parties concerning matters including payment adjustments, calculations, design issues and execution of the contract. Hariom Projects sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. After the application was rejected, proceedings were brought before the High Court under Section 37. During those proceedings, an arbitral tribunal was constituted. The High Court subsequently directed that the proceedings pending before it be remitted to the arbitral tribunal and treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This led to the question before the Supreme Court: can a High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 remit those proceedings to an arbitral tribunal and direct that they be treated as a Section 17 application?
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. The Court clarified that appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested in the “Court” contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An arbitral tribunal exercising its powers under Section 17 does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent court under Section 9. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 37 cannot simply be transferred to the arbitral tribunal and converted into proceedings under Section 17. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's order to the limited extent that it remitted the Section 37 proceedings to the arbitral tribunal and directed that they be treated as a Section 17 application.
Understanding Sections 9, 17 and 37
The judgment is particularly relevant because it reinforces the separate statutory roles assigned to courts and arbitral tribunals. Section 9 allows parties to approach a competent court for specified interim measures in connection with arbitral proceedings. Section 17 empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures during arbitral proceedings within the statutory framework. Section 37 provides for appeals against certain orders identified under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, including specified orders concerning interim measures. Although these provisions can operate at different stages of the same arbitration, the powers exercised under them are legally distinct.
Court and Tribunal Exercise Different Statutory Powers
A key aspect of the Supreme Court's decision is the distinction between the jurisdiction of a court and that of an arbitral tribunal. The constitution of an arbitral tribunal does not permit a statutory appeal pending before a court to be transformed into an application before the tribunal. A party may independently seek appropriate interim measures from the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 where legally permissible, but that is different from converting existing appellate proceedings under Section 37 into a Section 17 application. The judgment therefore reinforces the procedural boundaries established by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
What Happened to the Underlying Arbitration?
The Supreme Court noted that the arbitral tribunal was already dealing with the disputes between the parties and had passed several orders. The parties had also entered into a Supplementary Agreement dated 24 April 2026. Considering these subsequent developments, the Court did not disturb the ongoing arbitration. It clarified that the remaining issues relating to the disputes could continue to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal, with both parties free to raise contentions available to them in accordance with law. The Supreme Court stated that its order was intended to clarify the legal position concerning the relationship between Sections 37 and 17.
Why Is This Decision Important for Arbitration Proceedings?
The ruling provides procedural clarity regarding the respective functions of courts and arbitral tribunals. It indicates that the transition of a dispute into arbitral proceedings does not automatically permit existing statutory court proceedings to be converted into tribunal proceedings. For parties involved in arbitration, the decision highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate statutory remedy when seeking interim protection or challenging an order. The judgment may therefore be particularly relevant where Section 9 proceedings, Section 37 appeals and applications for interim measures before an arbitral tribunal overlap during the course of a dispute.
What Does This Mean for India's Arbitration Framework?
Indian arbitration law seeks to balance judicial support for arbitration with the autonomy of arbitral tribunals. Sections 9 and 37 provide specific roles for courts, while Section 17 enables arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures within arbitral proceedings. By maintaining the distinction between these mechanisms, the Supreme Court's decision provides further clarity regarding the institutional roles of courts and arbitral tribunals within India's arbitration framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. clarifies that a High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 cannot remit those proceedings to an arbitral tribunal and direct that they be treated as an application under Section 17. The ruling reinforces that Section 37 appellate proceedings and Section 17 interim-measure proceedings arise from distinct statutory powers. While parties remain free to approach an arbitral tribunal for appropriate interim measures in accordance with law, a statutory appeal before a court cannot be converted into a tribunal application merely because an arbitral tribunal has subsequently been constituted.
Reference
Supreme Court of India, Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 33087 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1044, judgment dated 18 September 2026. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e), 9, 17 and 37.
