Court Upholds Applicability of Section 9 in International Arbitration Post-Amendment Act

The court found the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act maintainable, emphasizing the applicability of the Amendment Act to proceedings initiated post-23.10.2015. It held that Section 9 applies to international commercial arbitration outside India unless expressly excluded by agreement. The court concluded that parties did not impliedly exclude Section 9 by choosing SIAC Rules for arbitration, allowing for court interim relief. Additionally, it ruled that obtaining an emergency award does not bar seeking court interim relief, as the Act lacks provisions for enforcing foreign arbitral tribunal orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
3. Interpretation of Section 26 of the Amendment Act.
4. Whether Section 9 of the Act applies to international commercial arbitration with a seat outside India.
5. Whether the parties have impliedly excluded the applicability of Section 9 of the Act.
6. Whether the petitioner can approach the court for interim relief after obtaining an emergency award from the arbitral tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for interim reliefs related to the Share Purchase Agreement. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that the arbitration was seated in Singapore, and hence Part I of the Act, including Section 9, was inapplicable.

2. Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015:
The respondents argued that the Amendment Act was inapplicable as the arbitration proceedings commenced before the Amendment Act came into force on 23.10.2015. The court examined Section 26 of the Amendment Act, which states that the Act shall not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the Amendment Act unless the parties agree otherwise.

3. Interpretation of Section 26 of the Amendment Act:
The court interpreted Section 26, noting that it is in two parts: the first part excludes the applicability of the Amendment Act to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23.10.2015, and the second part applies the Amendment Act to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after 23.10.2015. The court concluded that Section 26 does not cover proceedings in courts related to arbitral proceedings commenced before the Amendment Act.

4. Whether Section 9 of the Act Applies to International Commercial Arbitration with a Seat Outside India:
The court noted that the Amendment Act introduced a proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act, making Sections 9, 27, 37(1)(a), and 37(3) applicable to international commercial arbitration even if the seat of arbitration is outside India, provided there is no agreement to the contrary.

5. Whether the Parties Have Impliedly Excluded the Applicability of Section 9 of the Act:
The court examined the Dispute Resolution Clause of the agreement, which stated that the agreement would be governed by the laws of Singapore and arbitration would be conducted under the SIAC Rules. The court noted that the SIAC Rules allow parties to seek interim relief from courts, implying that seeking interim relief from courts is not incompatible with the arbitration proceedings. Thus, the court concluded that the parties had not impliedly excluded the applicability of Section 9 of the Act.

6. Whether the Petitioner Can Approach the Court for Interim Relief After Obtaining an Emergency Award from the Arbitral Tribunal:
The court observed that the Act does not contain provisions for enforcing interim orders granted by an arbitral tribunal outside India. Therefore, the emergency award passed by the arbitral tribunal cannot be enforced under the Act, and the petitioner would have to file a suit for enforcement. However, the court held that a party seeking interim measures cannot be precluded from doing so only because it had obtained a similar order from the arbitral tribunal. The court can independently apply its mind and grant interim relief if warranted.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the present petition under Section 9 of the Act is maintainable and should be considered on its merits. The court emphasized that the Amendment Act applies to proceedings instituted in courts after 23.10.2015, and the parties had not excluded the applicability of Section 9 by agreeing to the SIAC Rules.

---