As per case facts, appellants (ASA Group) and respondents (EPI Group) had disputes resolved via a Settlement Agreement. Appellants sought its execution as an award, but it was dismissed by ... a Single Judge. An SLP against this dismissal is pending. Meanwhile, appellants filed a Section 9 application for interim protection, which the Single Judge refused, citing lack of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the Doctrine of Election (due to appellants treating the agreement as both an award and an arbitration agreement). The question arose whether "enforced" in Section 9 means mere enforceability or full satisfaction, and if the Doctrine of Election applied. Finally, the High Court found "enforced" signifies complete satisfaction, not just filing an execution petition, thus ensuring the award holder isn't remediless. It held the Doctrine of Election inapplicable as Section 9 covers both scenarios. The Single Judge's refusal was set aside, and ad interim injunction granted, with a direction to dispose of the Section 9 application on merits.