Writ Petition Maintainable When Section 9 of Arbitration Act Order Neither Grants Nor Refuses Relief

The Kerala High Court held that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 is maintainable against a Commercial Court’s order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act  when the order neither grants nor refuses relief, making it non-appealable under Section 37.

In this case, the Commercial Court merely "closed" the petition without adjudicating on the interim reliefs sought. The court observed that such closure, based on the assumption that arbitration proceedings had commenced, did not amount to a decision under Section 9. 

Consequently, the petitioner lacked an alternative remedy, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. 

The Court relied on Asian Resurfacing (2018), observed that interim protections should not lapse due to procedural delays not attributable to the litigant.