Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to international commercial arbitrations held outside India, and whether a party may invoke section 9 for interim relief in such arbitrations.
Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as a whole, including the definitions of arbitration, international commercial arbitration, Court, and domestic award, together with sections 2(2), 2(5), 5, 9, 28 and the provisions in Part II dealing with foreign awards. The Court held that section 2(2) is inclusive and does not state that Part I shall not apply where the seat is outside India. It further held that the Act contains no express exclusion of Part I for foreign-seated international commercial arbitrations, that section 9 is available before or during arbitral proceedings, and that the words relating to enforcement in section 9 do not restrict pre-award relief. The Court also relied on the ICC Rules, which permit recourse to competent judicial authority for interim measures.
Conclusion: Part I applies to international commercial arbitrations held outside India unless excluded by agreement, and section 9 is available in such cases. The challenge to maintainability therefore fails.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express or implied exclusion, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India, and a party may seek interim protection under section 9 from a competent court in India.