Parties’ Consent Cannot Convert a Section 37 Arbitration Appeal into a Section 17 Application Before the Tribunal: Supreme Court

Case Name: Union of India & Others v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Judgment: 18 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1044

Bench: Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.

Held: A statutory appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against a court’s order under Section 9 must be dealt with by the appellate court. Even with the parties’ consent, the High Court cannot remit that appeal to an arbitral tribunal and direct it to treat the appellate proceedings as an application for interim measures under Section 17. The claimant may instead make an independent Section 17 application before the constituted tribunal.

Summary: Hariom Projects sought interim protection under Section 9 in a dispute arising from a contract for infrastructure work at NDA Khadakwasla. After the District Court rejected its application, it appealed to the High Court under Section 37. During the appeal, the Union terminated the work order and the High Court stayed the termination. The High Court then appointed a sole arbitrator by consent and directed that the pending Section 37 proceedings be transferred to the tribunal as a Section 17 application. The Supreme Court held that the two jurisdictions have different statutory sources: a tribunal deciding an application for interim measures cannot exercise the court’s appellate jurisdiction over a Section 9 order. It also noted that the original request to prevent termination had been overtaken by the termination itself, so any further interim relief would need to address the subsequent events.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside only the direction remitting the Section 37 proceedings to the tribunal as a Section 17 application. The arbitrator’s appointment and ongoing arbitration were left undisturbed.