Supreme Court Leaves Interim Relief in USD 6.69 Million Claim to FOSFA Arbitral Tribunal Already Mid-Hearing

Sunfield Global sought injunctive relief against Liberty Investments under Section 9 read with Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition on 08.01.2026 as not maintainable, because an arbitral tribunal under the parties' contract had been constituted on 17.11.2025 (para 2). On 22.09.2026 a Division Bench allowed Sunfield's appeal and directed Liberty to furnish a bank guarantee for the claim of USD 66,92,500 with interest and costs within two weeks, failing which it could not alienate or create third-party rights in the subject property until the arbitration ended (para 1). Liberty challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The parties disputed whether the FOSFA tribunal could grant such relief under Rule 4 of the FOSFA Rules read with Section 38 of the English Arbitration Act 1996, and whether a signed debt statement amounted to an admission of liability (paras 4-10). Without deciding those points, the Court held that, the tribunal having been constituted under the FOSFA Rules, the final call on interim relief should be left to it (para 11). Courts have often made Section 9 orders subject to further orders of the tribunal under Section 17 (para 12). As the tribunal was already deep into its hearing, it would be the best judge of any interim relief and, with all the documents before it, could assess whether there was an admission of liability, whether a set-off claim had prima facie merit, and whether an injunction was justified (para 13). The Court did not enter into the merits, and the High Court's observations on the merits were only for deciding the Section 9 petition and will not influence the tribunal (paras 18-19). Both parties agreed that the tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought, especially securing the amount in dispute (para 21).