Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 9, 11 and 17 – Appellant and respondent entered into an agreement for cargo handling – Disputes arose between the parties – Appellant invoked arbitration clause and gave notice to respondent – Appellant filed application u/s.11 of the Act, for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal before the High Court – Respondent replied to arbitration notice stating that the dispute was not arbitrable and there was an amount due and payable by the appellant – Both appellant and respondent filed separate applications u/s.9 before the Commercial Court – In pursuance to the earlier application u/s.11, the High Court appointed three member Arbitral Tribunal – Thereafter, the appellant filed application for reference of both the applications filed u/s.9 to the Tribunal – The Commercial Court dismissed the application for reference – The order of the Commercial Court was challenged before the High Court – The High Court held that the Commercial Court has the power to consider whether the remedy u/s.17 of the Arbitration Act is inefficacious and pass necessary orders u/s.9 of the said Act – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that s.9(3) of the Act restricts the power to entertain an application under sub-section (1) of s.9 of the Act once an Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted – Held: s. 9(1) enables the parties to an arbitration agreement to approach the appropriate Court for interim measures before the commencement of arbitral proceedings, during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of an arbitral award but before it is enforced and in accordance with s.36 of the Arbitration Act – The bar of s. 9(3) operates where the application u/s. 9(1) had not been entertained till the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal – If an application u/s. 9 had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal, the Court always has the discretion to direct the parties to approach the Arbitral Tribunal, if necessary by passing a limited order of interim protection, particularly when there has been a long time gap between hearings and the application has for all practical purposes, to be heard afresh, or the hearing has just commenced and is likely to consume a lot of time – The High Court has rightly directed the Commercial Court to proceed to complete the adjudication – It is clarified that it shall not be necessary for the Commercial Court to consider the efficacy of relief u/s. 17, since the application u/s. 9 has already been entertained and considered by the Commercial Court. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 9(3) – Expression ‘entertain’ – Held: the expression “entertain” means to consider by application of mind to the issues raised – The Court entertains a case when it takes a matter up for consideration.