The Supreme Court of India, comprising Aravind Kumar, J. and Vipul M. Pancholi, J., delivered its judgment on 24 September 2026 in Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited. The principal issue concerned the interplay between interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appellate proceedings under Section 37, particularly where the parties mutually agree to constitute an arbitral tribunal during the pendency of the appeal.The dispute arose from three agreements executed on 26 August 2025—a Manufacturing Agreement, Supply and Distribution Agreement, and Intellectual Property Agreement. The respondent had agreed to manufacture vehicles exclusively for the appellant, subject to exclusivity and non-compete obligations. The appellant alleged that the respondent breached these obligations by manufacturing and marketing electric vehicles under the “Mayuri” brand. The Commercial Court granted interim protection under Section 9, restraining the respondent from manufacturing, marketing or selling the disputed vehicles.The Karnataka High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 37, stayed the Commercial Court’s order, observing that the joint venture had not fully commenced and that the Mayuri models were pre-existing. It instead directed that no new vehicles be launched and that sales accounts be maintained.

ISSUES OF LAW:

The principal issue before the Court was whether the High Court of Karnataka, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rightly stayed an interim protection order granted by the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Act. Relatedly, the issue concerned the appropriate procedural framework for interim protection when both parties mutually agree to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal during the pendency of Section 37 appellate proceedings.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

The appellant and the respondent entered into three commercial agreements on August 26, 2025: a Manufacturing Agreement, a Supply and Distribution Agreement, and an Intellectual Property Agreement. Under the Manufacturing Agreement, the respondent agreed to exclusively manufacture vehicles for the appellant, subject to exclusivity and non-compete clauses.

A dispute arose when the respondent manufactured and marketed electric vehicles under the “Mayuri” brand (including Mayuri Rattan L5 Auto), which the appellant alleged breached the exclusivity and non-compete obligations. The appellant approached the Commercial Court, Bengaluru under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The Commercial Court granted interim protection restraining the respondent from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the disputed electric vehicles.

In an appeal under Section 37, the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka stayed the Commercial Court's order on the ground that the joint venture had not fully “taken off” and that Mayuri models were pre-existing. The High Court merely directed that no new vehicles be launched and that sales accounts be maintained. Aggrieved by this stay, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT:

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, senior counsel for both parties jointly agreed to bypass the multi-arbitrator clause and requested the Court to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

Accepting the joint request, the Supreme Court appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran, former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the sole Arbitrator. Following the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court directed the parties to move an application for interim measures before the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.

The Court set aside and modified both the Commercial Court's Section 9 order and the High Court's Section 37 order. To preserve the status quo until the Section 17 application is decided, the Supreme Court modified the interim arrangement to specifically restrain the respondent from launching or manufacturing vehicles as described under Annexures A and B read with Clause 1.1 of the agreement dated August 26, 2025. The Arbitrator was directed to examine the Section 17 application uninfluenced by any observations made in the previous court orders.

LINK TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT HERE

CASE NAME:

Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solutions Limited v. Saera Electric Auto Limited

COURT NAME:

Supreme Court of India

JUDGES NAME:

Aravind Kumar, J. and Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

September 24, 2026

CITATION / NEUTRAL CITATION:

2026 INSC 1057 | Civil Appeal No. 13117 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 31162 of 2026)