https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351825 The court held that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim measures pending the enforcement of a foreign award. It concluded that the definition of "Court" under the Explanation to Section 47 applied, allowing the court to exercise jurisdiction even if the seat of arbitration was outside India. The court emphasized the legislative intent of the 2015 amendments to prevent foreign awards from being merely paper awards and to provide effective remedies to parties. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:09:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351825 The court held that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim measures pending the enforcement of a foreign award. It concluded that the definition of "Court" under the Explanation to Section 47 applied, allowing the court to exercise jurisdiction even if the seat of arbitration was outside India. The court emphasized the legislative intent of the 2015 amendments to prevent foreign awards from being merely paper awards and to provide effective remedies to parties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351825