Interim relief in foreign-seated arbitration remains available absent clear exclusion, with amended Indian law applying to later court proceedings.

Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act was read as not exhaustive, so the amended regime applied to court proceedings filed after 23.10.2015 in relation to foreign-seated arbitrations. The distinction between proceedings "to" arbitration and those "in relation to" arbitration was treated as significant, bringing court applications within the amended law unless expressly excluded. The proviso to Section 2(2) was construed to allow recourse to Section 9, as well as Sections 27 and parts of Section 37, for international commercial arbitrations seated outside India unless the parties clearly agreed otherwise. A Singapore seat, Singapore governing law, and SIAC Rules were not treated as an implied exclusion of interim relief in India.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to court proceedings filed after 23.10.2015 in relation to foreign-seated arbitral proceedings, and whether the proviso to Section 2(2) permits recourse to Section 9 despite the Singapore seat and Singapore governing law.

Analysis: Section 26 of the Amendment Act was read as not being exhaustive, because its first limb refers only to arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 21 of the principal Act and does not cover proceedings in court in relation to foreign-seated arbitrations. The distinction between "to" and "in relation to" was treated as material, and the amended law was held applicable from its commencement to court proceedings not expressly excluded. The proviso to Section 2(2) was then construed to extend Sections 9, 27 and the specified parts of Section 37 to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India, unless excluded by agreement. The choice of Singapore law and SIAC Rules was held not to amount to an implied exclusion of Section 9, especially since the SIAC Rules themselves permit recourse to judicial interim relief and are consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable, and the petitioner was entitled to invoke Section 9 notwithstanding the foreign seat of arbitration.

---