As per case facts, the Petitioner sought interlocutory protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to secure a foreign arbitral award while a parallel petition ... for its enforcement and execution under Part II of the Act was ongoing. The Respondent argued that Section 9 jurisdiction is unavailable once Part II proceedings have commenced, contending that Section 9's reference to enforcement under Section 36 (for domestic awards) implicitly bars its use for foreign awards already in the enforcement process. The question arose whether Section 9 of the Act, applicable to foreign awards through Section 2(2), continues to be available for interim relief after a petition for recognition and enforcement under Part II has been filed. Finally, the Court ruled that Section 9 jurisdiction is not barred. It highlighted the distinct enforcement mechanisms for domestic and foreign awards; unlike domestic awards which can become decrees automatically, foreign awards require a positive affirmation from the Part II Court to be deemed a decree. Since Parliament did not impose a specific time limit for Section 9's operation concerning foreign awards linked to Part II proceedings, and to protect the award-creditor, the Court dismissed the jurisdictional objection and directed the Respondent to secure the award amount.