Interim relief for enforcement of a foreign award turns on the Section 47 jurisdictional reference, not the Section 2 definition.

In a Section 9 petition seeking interim protection in aid of enforcement of a foreign award, the relevant jurisdictional reference is the "Court" under the Explanation to Section 47, not the definition in Section 2(1)(e). The amended scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, especially the proviso to Section 2(2), extends interim relief to foreign-seated international commercial arbitrations where the award is enforceable in India. The distinction between the subject matter of the arbitration and the subject matter of the award is material, because enforcement becomes the operative focus after the award is made. Jurisdiction was therefore upheld and the territorial objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim protection in aid of enforcement of a foreign award, the expression "Court" is to be understood by reference to Section 2(1)(e) of the Act or the Explanation to Section 47 of the Act.

Analysis: The amended scheme of the Act, particularly the proviso to Section 2(2), makes Section 9 applicable to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India where the award is enforceable under Part II. Reading the definition of "Court" in Section 2(1)(e) literally in that setting would create an anomaly, because once a foreign award is made the dispute is no longer about the original subject matter of arbitration but about enforcement of the award, especially where the award is a money award and assets are located within the jurisdiction of the Court. The statutory definitions must be read in context, and the legislative purpose of the 2015 amendment was to provide an efficacious interim remedy in aid of enforcement of foreign awards. The distinction between the "subject matter of the arbitration" and the "subject matter of the award" therefore becomes material, and the Explanation to Section 47 supplies the appropriate jurisdictional reference for such a Section 9 petition.

Conclusion: The Court held that, for a Section 9 petition filed in aid of enforcement of a foreign award, the relevant "Court" is the Court as defined in the Explanation to Section 47 of the Act, and not the Court defined in Section 2(1)(e). Jurisdiction was accordingly upheld in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was maintainable before this Court, and the territorial-jurisdiction objection failed because interim relief in aid of enforcement of the foreign award could be sought where the respondent's assets and bank accounts were situated.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 9 seeking interim measures in aid of enforcement of a foreign award, the jurisdictional reference is the Court under the Explanation to Section 47, since the award's enforcement, not the original arbitration dispute, is the operative subject matter.

---