Ad-Interim Orders Passed U/S. 9 Arbitration & Conciliation Act Appealable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court was hearing Commercial Court Appeals arising out of an order passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam, granting ad-interim protection in pending Section 9 proceedings.

88Advocate Ravi Teja Padiri appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Umar Abdullah appeared for the respondents.

Background

The respondent companies had filed applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam, seeking interim measures in relation to disputes arising out of contractual arrangements with the Visakhapatnam Port Authority.

Upon filing of the Section 9 applications, the Special Judge passed an order dated 19.12.2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of the petitions, while posting the matter for further hearing. The order was expressly passed as an ad-interim measure, with the Section 9 petitions remaining pending.

Aggrieved by the grant of ad-interim protection, the Visakhapatnam Port Authority preferred Commercial Court Appeals under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scheme of Section 9 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to determine whether an appeal would lie against an ad-interim order.

The Court noted that Section 9 empowers courts to grant interim measures, including interim injunctions and such other protective measures as may appear just and convenient. Section 37(1)(b), the Court noted, provides that an appeal shall lie from an order “granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9” and from no others.

The Bench observed that the expression “any measure” under Section 37(1)(b) is broad enough to include ad-interim measures, particularly where such orders direct maintenance of the status quo and operate as interim injunctions pending adjudication of the Section 9 petition.

Drawing an analogy with the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court referred to Section 104 CPC and Order XLIII Rule 1(r), under which even orders granting ad-interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 are appealable in appropriate cases.

The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that appeals against ad-interim injunctions are maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, though such appeals should ordinarily be entertained only in exceptional circumstances.

Addressing the contrary view taken by the Meghalaya High Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd., which held that Section 37 contemplates appeals only against final orders, the Andhra Pradesh High Court expressly disagreed. The Bench held that such a restrictive interpretation does not flow from the plain language of Section 37(1)(b).

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, clarifying that while Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act does not create an independent right of appeal, it expressly permits appeals from orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

On a conjoint reading of these provisions, the Court held that where an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 is of the nature of an interim injunction, it squarely falls within Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the ad-interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo was an order granting an interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Commercial Court Appeals were maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and directed that the appeals be numbered and listed for further consideration.

The Court clarified that its order on maintainability would not impede the Commercial Court from deciding the pending Section 9 petitions on their merits.

Cause Title: Visakhapatnam Port Authority v. Vishwanadh India Avenues Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Appearances

Appellants: Ravi Teja Padiri, Advocate

Respondents: Damalapati Srinivas, Advocate General; Umar Abdullah, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment