https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301121 A Section 9 petition was held not maintainable where the arbitration agreement provided for a Japan-seated arbitration under JCAA Rules with a complete mechanism for emergency and interim relief, implying exclusion of recourse to Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicants had already invoked emergency arbitration and received a reasoned rejection, and no fresh change in circumstances was pleaded to justify a renewed Section 9 request. The court also treated the petition as an impermissible attempt to appeal against the emergency arbitrator's order. The distinction from cases allowing Section 9 was that those clauses did not exclude court intervention and, in some instances, expressly permitted it. en-us Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Mar 2022 07:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301121 A Section 9 petition was held not maintainable where the arbitration agreement provided for a Japan-seated arbitration under JCAA Rules with a complete mechanism for emergency and interim relief, implying exclusion of recourse to Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicants had already invoked emergency arbitration and received a reasoned rejection, and no fresh change in circumstances was pleaded to justify a renewed Section 9 request. The court also treated the petition as an impermissible attempt to appeal against the emergency arbitrator's order. The distinction from cases allowing Section 9 was that those clauses did not exclude court intervention and, in some instances, expressly permitted it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301121