Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) permits a party to seek interim reliefs. This is provided to, inter alia, mitigate the risk that the arbitral award is not rendered a paper decree on account of any action by the Respondent to alienate its assets or otherwise. 

This note will summarize the important aspects of the law on the grant of interim reliefs by arbitral tribunals/ courts (including the grounds for the grant of interim relief and the enforceability of an interim order/ award). It will also seek to trace the amendments to the relevant statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements on interim reliefs.

History and Background 

The scope of the power of the Court or arbitral tribunal to grant interim reliefs has undergone a substantial change since the predecessor statute, i.e., the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act). Section 41 of the 1940 Act1 empowered the Court to grant interim measures during the pendency of the arbitration. This power included taking goods into interim custody, detention, preservation, inspecting property or goods, appointing a receiver, guardian, etc. Under Section 18 of the 1940 Act2, the Court also had powers to pass interim orders to take protective action after filing the arbitral award if it was satisfied that a party had taken or was about to take steps to defeat, delay, or obstruct the execution of any decree. 

However, the 1940 Act did not empower the arbitral tribunal to grant interim protective measures.3 In Daulat Ram v. Shri Ram4, The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with a revision application against an order passed under Section 41 of the 1940 Act, observed that “arbitrators have not been vested by the Act with any power to grant interim orders for the protection and safety of the subject-matter of the dispute.” 

Provisions with respect to the Grant of Interim Reliefs under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

In the 1996 Act, the arbitral tribunal’s power to grant interim relief has been explicitly provided under Section 17 [modelled after Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law)5] and the Court’s power to grant interim measures is provided under Section 9 [modelled after Article 9 of the Model Law].6 

Bare Text of the Provisions (Pre-2015 Amendment)

9. Interim measures, etc. by the Court– (1) A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court—

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings or

(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely: —

(a) the preservation, interim custody, or sale of any goods which are the subject matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation, or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient,
and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.

17. Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal– (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order a party to take any interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. 

(2) The arbitral tribunal may require a party to provide appropriate security in connection with a measure ordered under sub- section (1).”

The scope of the power of the Arbitral Tribunal, as well as that of the Court, to grant interim relief has changed post the 2015 amendments. Before the amendment of the Arbitration Act in 20157, Section 17 was narrowly worded, while section 9 granted the Court explicit and comprehensive powers to grant interim reliefs. Therefore, the Court’s power to grant interim reliefs was construed to be wider than the reliefs that could be given by the Arbitral Tribunal. Moreover, there was no bar on the Court’s entertaining prayers for interim relief even while the tribunal was functioning.

Vide the 2015 amendment, the scope of an arbitral tribunal’s powers under Section 17(1) has been considerably widened, and the arbitral tribunal has been conferred the same power as that of the Court under Section 9. 

Bare Text of the Provisions (post-2015 amendment)

9. Interim measures, etc. by the Court– (1) A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court—

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings or

(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely: —

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient,

and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.

(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine.

(3) Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application under sub-section (1), unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under section 17 efficacious.”

17. Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal.– (1) A party may, during the arbitral proceedings, apply to the arbitral tribunal-

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or

(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:–

(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken, or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;

(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the arbitral tribunal to be just and convenient, and the arbitral tribunal shall have the same power for making orders, as the Court has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.

(2) Subject to any orders passed in an appeal under section 37, any order issued by the arbitral tribunal under this section shall be deemed to be an order of the Court for all purposes and shall be enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were an order of the Court.”

It may be noted that the Model Law also underwent amendments in 2006, in which Article 17 was significantly expanded.8 The 2006 amendment further added Chapter IVA to the Model Law, dealing with “Interim Measures and Preliminary Orders.” This chapter includes the amended Article 17 in addition to the novel Articles 17A to 17I added via the 2006 amendment. These newly added articles deal with issues such as the conditions for the grant of interim measures9, the conditions and the specific regime for the grant of preliminary orders10, modification of interim measures and preliminary orders11, as well as recognition and enforcement of these measures.12

By modelling Section 17 on the corresponding article of the Model Law13, India has aligned its arbitration legislation in line with other mature Model Law jurisdictions such as Singapore14 and Hong Kong.15 

Scope of Powers under Sections 9 and 17

As stated above, post the amendment, the Arbitral Tribunal has similar powers of granting interim reliefs as were conferred on a Court under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. While a Court under Section 9 may entertain an application for interim reliefs “…before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36…,” an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 may hear an application for interim reliefs only “during the arbitral proceedings.” Furthermore, after the insertion of sub-section (3) to Section 9, the Court’s powers to grant interim reliefs have been truncated once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted.

The timeframe within which Section 9 can be invoked is now restricted to instances where (i) the Arbitral Tribunal has not been constituted, or (ii) it has delivered the award, and hence it has become functus officio, or (iii) if the tribunal due to any other reason cannot give an efficacious remedy (for instance, a stay on proceedings). In all other cases, the parties are required to approach the tribunal under Section 17 for interim relief.

Notably, in cases where the Court grants interim relief prior to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, Section 9(2), as inserted by the 2015 amendment, requires that the arbitration must start within the 90-day period from the date of the interim order passed by the Court. This was to ensure that the party in whose favor the interim order was passed by the Court does not delay the commencement of the arbitration. This amendment codifies the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Traders (Firm) v. Gurumukh Das Saluja, which held that a party invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration Act must be ready and willing to go to arbitration.16

The question as to whether a Court may entertain a Section 9 petition after the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.17 The Supreme Court, inter alia, acknowledged that, 

“68…There is, therefore, no reason why the Court should continue to take up applications for interim relief, once the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted and is in seisin of the dispute between the parties, unless there is some impediment in approaching the Arbitral Tribunal, or the interim relief sought cannot expeditiously be obtained from the Arbitral Tribunal.” 

The Supreme Court has in this case clarified that the Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction to grant interim reliefs once the Arbitral Tribunal constituted, it may continue to do in the event that it deems that the Section 17 remedy is not efficacious. The discretion in deciding whether to invoke its jurisdiction after the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted, continues to vest in the Court.18

In the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the Court had the discretion to entertain and hear the Section 9 petition as the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted after the hearing on the Section 9 petition was complete, and only the pronouncement of orders remained. The Supreme Court observed that “It could, therefore, never have been the legislative intent that even after an application under Section 9 is finally heard, relief would have to be declined and the parties be remitted to their remedy under Section 17.” 

Effectively, the Supreme Court in Arcelor Mittal held that the bar under Section 9(3) is only against the Court entertaining fresh application after the constitution of the tribunal and not against passing the order where the application had already been considered at length by the Court.

It must be noted that an order passed by the Court under Section 9 would continue to remain in force till arbitral proceedings are completed.19

Power to Grant Interim Relief against a Third Party

The Court, under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, also enjoys the power of granting interim reliefs against third parties. This power is not enjoyed by the Arbitral Tribunal. It was held by the Telangana High Court in Spa Agencies (India) Private Ltd., Chennai v. Harish Rawtani, that interim orders by the tribunal can be directed only to parties to arbitral proceedings and not to a third party.20 But the same is not true for the power under Section 9, as is clear from the Delhi High Court judgment in Value Advisory Services v. ZTE Corpn., which held that Section 9 could be invoked even against a third party who is not a party to an arbitration agreement or arbitration proceedings, in certain circumstances.21 In Gatx India Pvt. Ld. v. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Limited, the Delhi High Court elaborated on what these exceptional circumstances could be. It held that an order against a third party under Section 9 can be passed where denial thereof might frustrate the petitioner’s rights in arbitration, defeat the very object of arbitration between the parties thereto, render the arbitration proceedings infructuous, lead to gross injustice, and/or leave the petitioner remediless.22

Criteria for Granting Interim Relief

The Supreme Court in Essar House Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal held that the criteria for granting interim relief under Sections 9 and 17 has been inspired by the principles of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Hence, the following are considered before granting interim relief: (i) whether the applicant has demonstrated a strong prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience favors granting interim relief (iii) whether the applicant has approached the Court with reasonable expedition.23

The Supreme Court noted that:

“40. While it is true that the power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not ordinarily be exercised ignoring the basic principles of procedural law as laid down in the CPC, the technicalities of CPC cannot prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice. It is well settled that procedural safeguards, meant to advance the cause of justice, cannot be interpreted in such manner as would defeat justice.

…

49. If a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. 

50. Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice. To assess the balance of convenience, the Court is required to examine and weigh the consequences of refusing interim relief to the applicant for interim relief in case of success in the proceedings against the consequence of granting interim relief to the opponent in case the proceedings should ultimately fail.“24

In the subsequent decision in Sanghi Industries v. Ravin Cables, the Supreme Court appears to have adopted a more technical approach by holding that conditions under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC must mandatorily be satisfied, before an order of interim relief can be ordered.25 The Court observed as follows: 

“4. …we are of the opinion that unless and until the pre-conditions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC are satisfied and unless there are specific allegations with cogent material and unless prima-facie the Court is satisfied that the appellant is likely to defeat the decree/award that may be passed by the arbitrator by disposing of the properties and/or in any other manner, the Commercial Court could not have passed such an order in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996…”

Enforceability of Interim Relief Orders

Prior to the 2015 amendments, an order of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 was not enforceable directly as held in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd, where the Court noted, 

“Though Section 17 gives the arbitral tribunal the power to pass orders the same cannot be enforced as orders of a Court. It is for this reason that Section 9 admittedly gives the Court power to pass interim orders during the arbitration proceedings.”26 

This position was subsequently reiterated in M.D., Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd.27 A party had to file a contempt petition in the High Court whenever the other party refused to comply with the orders of the tribunal. This was a comparatively tedious process of trying to ensure compliance with orders.

By the amendment in 2015 to Section 17(2), the orders of the tribunal have been made enforceable as orders of a Civil Court, thereby creating a legal fiction that facilitated the process of arbitration and enhanced the authority of the tribunal. 

This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan where the Court noted,

“Sub-section (2) to Section 17 was added by the Amendment Act 2015, so that the cumbersome procedure of an Arbitral Tribunal having to apply every time to the High Court for contempt of its orders would no longer be necessary. Such orders would now be deemed to be orders of the Court for all purposes and would be enforced under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in the same manner as if they were orders of the Court.”28

Consequently, all the consequences will follow as they do in the case of disobedience of the order of the civil Court, including action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, CPC, upon an application being filed with the Court29 and Section 94 of the CPC.30 

Notably, in the case of Pradeep K N v. Station House Officer, Perumbavoor Police Station and Ors.31, it was clarified that while the Arbitral Tribunal has the same powers as a Court in passing an interim order, it cannot enforce and / or execute its own orders. Enforcement or execution of an order is a sovereign or state function which cannot be conferred upon an Arbitral Tribunal which is a creation of a contract. 

Appeals Against Orders of Interim Relief

An appeal from a court order under Section 9 can be filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act.32 Similarly, an appeal from an order of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 can be filed as per Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act.33

The Interplay of Emergency Arbitration and the Provisions Pertaining to Interim Measures

Emergency arbitration refers to the provision of urgent interim relief by an arbitral tribunal before it formally constitutes itself and begins its proceedings. Taking note of the rise of emergency arbitration in the rules of major arbitration institutions, the 246th Law Commission had recommended that Section 2(1)(d) of the Arbitration Act, defining the term arbitral tribunal, should be amended to expressly include an emergency arbitrator.34 However, the same did not find its way to the amendments passed in 2015.

In the backdrop of the legislative lacuna pertaining to validity of emergency arbitration and awards passed by emergency arbitrators, the Indian judiciary has played a proactive role in ensuring the enforcement of emergency awards. This was clearly showcased in the Supreme Court decision in Amazon NV Investment Holdings v. Future Retail, which held that Section 17 of the Arbitration Act could be read purposively to include emergency arbitrators within the definition of “tribunal” for India-seated arbitrations.35 

Arbitration institutions in India such as the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and the Mumbai International Arbitration have also recognized the concept of emergency arbitration in their rules.36

The Delhi High Court had in Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Educomp Professional Education Ltd.37, rejected a Section 9 petition which sought to enforce an emergency award passed by a foreign-seated tribunal. The emergency award was passed under the SIAC Rules by an Arbitral Tribunal seated in Singapore. The Court held that recourse to Section 9 of the Act was not available to enforce the orders of the arbitral tribunal (of a foreign seat), but that did not mean that the Court could not independently apply its mind and grant interim relief where warranted. 

In other cases, courts have borne in mind the reasoning given by the emergency arbitrator while making their independent assessment with respect to grant of ad interim reliefs when a party approaches them under Section 9 subsequent to obtaining an order of interim relief by the emergency arbitrator. This is demonstrated in Plus Holdings v. Xeitgeist Entertainment Group38, where the Bombay High Court, inter alia, observed that the rights of parties in a licensing dispute had been “sufficiently recognized in the emergency award,” and granted similar ad-interim reliefs as ordered by the emergency arbitrator. Similarly, in Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin39, where the emergency arbitrator had declined to pass an order in favour of the applicants, the Delhi High Court held that the applicants were not entitled to a “second bite at the cherry,” and having lost before the emergency arbitrator, could not litigate the issue again. It may also be noted that in this case, the parties had explicitly excluded the applicability of Part I of the Act and hence the Court also held that its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act could not be invoked. Notably, this order was upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal.40

Implication of Stamping the Arbitration Agreement for Order under Section 9 

The Bombay High Court in L&T Finance Ltd. v. Diamond Projects Ltd., has held that insufficient stamping shall not be an impediment in grant of interim reliefs under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.41 The Court also observed that a party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC shall not be debarred even if the agreement from which the rights are flowing is unstamped, and a different test ought not to be adopted for parties seeking interim reliefs under Section 9 pursuant to an insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement.

This was affirmed by a seven-judge bench in the Stamping judgment, which noted that,

Issues which concern the payment of stamp-duty fall within the remit of the arbitral tribunal. The discussion in the preceding segments also make it evident that courts are not required to deal with the issue of stamping at the stage of granting interim measures under Section 9.42 

The Way Forward

The evolving jurisprudence surrounding interim reliefs under the Arbitration Act has strengthened the framework for effective arbitration in India. The amendments to the Arbitration Act, particularly those introduced in 2015, have significantly enhanced the ability of the arbitral tribunals to provide interim measures, and minimized judicial intervention in the process. However, several areas warrant further clarification and improvement to ensure seamless enforcement of arbitration awards and interim reliefs.

First, while Section 9 provides an expansive scope for the courts to grant interim relief, its application against third parties remains contentious. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Value Advisory Services allows the invocation of Section 9 against third parties under exceptional circumstances. To mitigate the unpredictability in this area, the legislature could consider providing clearer guidelines on when third parties can be subject to interim measures.

The issue of emergency arbitration also remains a key concern. The Amazon v. Future Retail case acknowledged the inclusion of emergency arbitrators (India seated) within the definition of “tribunal” under Section 17, but the enforceability of emergency awards remains an area of ambiguity, especially for foreign-seated arbitrations. To bridge this gap, a legislative amendment to expressly recognize emergency arbitrators within the framework of the Arbitration Act may bring India in line with global best practices and enhance its attractiveness as an arbitration destination.

  1. The Arbitration Act, 1940, S.41. ↩︎
  2. The Arbitration Act, 1940, S.18. ↩︎
  3. It may be noted that the Arbitral tribunal did have the power to issue an 'interim award' under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act of 1940.  ↩︎
  4. Daulat Ram v. Shri Ram, AIR 1964 MP 219, para. 9. ↩︎
  5. Text of the Model Law (1985 version), https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/06-54671_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  6. Text of the Model Law (1985 version), https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/06-54671_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  7. Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. ↩︎
  8. Article 17. Power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures.(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, grant interim measures. 
    (2) An interim measure is any temporary measure, whether in the form of an award or in another form, by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, the arbitral tribunal orders a party to: 
    (a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute; 
    (b) Take action that would prevent or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself; 
    (c) Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or 
    (d) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.”
    UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf.      ↩︎
  9. Art. 17A, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  10. Art. 17B, 17C, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  11. Art. 17D, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  12. Art. 17H, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  13. Art. 17, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf. ↩︎
  14. International Arbitration Act 1994, §12, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/act/iaa1994?ProvIds=P12-#pr12-. ↩︎
  15. Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, §35, (Cap. 609 of the Laws of Hong Kong),  https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap609. ↩︎
  16. Ashok Traders (Firm) v. Gurumukh Das Saluja, (2004) 3 SCC 155, paras. 18,19. ↩︎
  17. Arcelormittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712, para. 68. ↩︎
  18. Arcelormittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712, paras. 61, 62, 64, 74. ↩︎
  19. Kirtikumar Futarmal Jain v. Valencia Corporation, Special Civil Application No. 15145 of 2019, para. 21.3. ↩︎
  20. Spa Agencies (India) Private Ltd., Chennai v. Harish Rawtani, 2009 SCC Online AP 835, para. 8. ↩︎
  21. Value Advisory Services v. ZTE Corpn., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1961, para. 15. ↩︎
  22. Gatx India Pvt. Ld. v. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Limited, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4181, para. 71. ↩︎
  23. Essar House (P) Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219, paras. 48-50. ↩︎
  24. Essar House (P) Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219, para. 40. ↩︎
  25. Sanghi Industries Ltd. v. Ravin Cables Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1329, para. 4. ↩︎
  26. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 479, para. 11. ↩︎
  27. Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619, paras. 51-52. ↩︎
  28. Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan, (2017) 16 SCC 119, para. 9. ↩︎
  29. Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209, paras. 69-72.  ↩︎
  30. Pradeep K.N. v. Station House officer, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 8995, paras. 8-10.  ↩︎
  31. Pradeep K.N. v. Station House officer, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 8995, paras. 13-20. ↩︎
  32. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.37(1)(b). ↩︎
  33. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.37(2)(b). ↩︎
  34. Law Commission of India, 246th Report on Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (August 2014) pg. 37, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022081615.pdf. ↩︎
  35. Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209, paras. 13, 14, 23, 24, 27, 30-34, 46.  ↩︎
  36. DIAC Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2023, Part E; Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration Rules, 2016, Part 14.  ↩︎
  37. Raffles Design International India v. Educomp Professional Education, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5521. ↩︎
  38. Plus Holdings v. Xeitgeist Entertainment Group, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13069, paras. 6, 8, 9, 10. ↩︎
  39. Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1648, para. 55. ↩︎
  40. Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1123, para. 2. ↩︎
  41. L & T Finance Ltd. v. Diamond Projects Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2832, paras. 133-140. ↩︎
  42. Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, para. 197. ↩︎