Foreign-seated arbitration can still attract Section 9 relief where the contract does not clearly exclude interim protection.

In a foreign-seated international commercial arbitration, Section 9 interim relief remains available under the proviso to Section 2(2) unless the contract specifically excludes that remedy. A general Singapore exclusive jurisdiction clause did not, by itself, bar Indian court intervention, particularly where assets and the aircraft were in India and pre-arbitral protection would otherwise be ineffective. The Court also found a prima facie breach of lease obligations in the alleged failure to supply registration documents and to provide an aircraft fit for Indian regulatory compliance, and accepted the risk of dissipation. Interim protection was therefore granted and the amount deposited in Court was directed to be retained pending arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the arbitration was seated in Singapore and the contract contained a Singapore jurisdiction clause; (ii) Whether the petitioner made out a prima facie case for interim protection securing the aircraft and the amount paid under the lease deed.

Issue (i): Whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the arbitration was seated in Singapore and the contract contained a Singapore jurisdiction clause.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends Section 9 to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. The Court held that a general clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Singapore courts did not, by itself, amount to an agreement excluding Section 9 relief, particularly where pre-arbitral interim protection over assets located in India would otherwise be practically unavailable. The Court also noted that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi because the later lease deed was executed there.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected, and the petition was held maintainable before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner made out a prima facie case for interim protection securing the aircraft and the amount paid under the lease deed.

Analysis: On the material before it, the Court found prima facie breach of the lease obligations by the respondent in not supplying the documentation necessary for registration in India, in not ensuring the aircraft was delivered in a condition fit for Indian regulatory compliance, and in asserting an unsupported case of unilateral termination by the petitioner. The Court also found prima facie substance in the claim that maintenance reserves were not payable because the aircraft had not been flown. As the respondent and related assets were outside India and there was a real apprehension of dissipation, protection of the arbitral corpus was considered necessary.

Conclusion: Interim protection was warranted, and the amount deposited in Court was directed to be retained pending the arbitral outcome.

Final Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and succeeded to the limited extent of securing the arbitral subject matter by interim protection, while the remaining prayers did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: In a foreign-seated international commercial arbitration, Section 9 relief remains available under the proviso to Section 2(2) unless the contract specifically excludes such remedy; a general foreign jurisdiction clause does not, without more, bar Indian courts from granting pre-arbitral interim protection over assets in India.

---