Bombay High Court hears Section 9 petition for interim protection pending arbitration over CEO's removal

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 4 November 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Daskalos Technologies Private Limited vs Atul Khosla, decided on 2026-11-03, the Bombay High Court heard a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner sought urgent ad-interim and interim protection until an arbitral tribunal is constituted, arising from a dispute over the CEO's removal and the alleged voidness of his employment agreement.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The court considered a petition for urgent interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, where the underlying dispute concerned the validity of an employment agreement and the removal of a CEO.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should note that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be invoked for urgent interim relief even before an arbitral tribunal is constituted. Litigants seeking to remove a CEO based on an allegedly void employment agreement may seek such pre-arbitration interim protection.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows for urgent interim protection before tribunal constitution.
2Interim relief can be sought in disputes concerning the validity of employment agreements and executive removal.
3The petition must demonstrate serious and irreparable harm to justify urgent interim measures.

The Legal Issue Daskalos Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking urgent ad-interim and interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The protection was sought until an arbitral tribunal could be constituted and arbitration proceedings commenced. The dispute originated from an Employment Agreement dated 1 July 2025, between Daskalos Technologies Private Limited and Mr. Atul Khosla, who was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Court's Reasoning The Petitioner contended that the Employment Agreement was void from its inception and requested Mr. Khosla to take steps for his removal as CEO. Mr. Khosla's refusal to cooperate, according to the Petitioner, was causing serious and irreparable harm to the Company. The Bombay High Court heard the petition, which aimed to secure interim measures to safeguard the company's interests pending the resolution of the dispute through arbitration.

What Follows The Bombay High Court heard the petition for urgent ad-interim and interim protection. The outcome of the petition, including any directions issued or interim orders granted, would determine the immediate course of action regarding Mr. Khosla's position and the company's operations until the arbitral tribunal is constituted and begins its proceedings.