Interim Reliefs In Aid Of Foreign Seated Arbitration - Challenges, Judicial Trends And Reform Proposals In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Arbitration & ADR

Published: 2026-08-23T20:22:08.23083+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:03.059+00:00

INTERIM RELIEFS IN AID OF FOREIGN SEATED

ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES, JUDICIAL TRENDS AND

REFORM PROPOSALS IN INDIA

Poorvi Ravi Mudaraddi, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

ABSTRACT

Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute settlement in cross-border commercial transactions because of its efficiency, confidentiality, and party autonomy. Interim reliefs serve as a protective shield during the pendency of arbitration by preserving the status quo between parties, safeguarding the subject matter of the dispute, preventing the dissipation of assets, and securing evidence crucial to the final award. However, the availability and implementation of interim reliefs have a substantial impact on the effectiveness of arbitration, particularly when the arbitration seat is foreign. Interim reliefs are critical in protecting the subject matter of the dispute, averting asset loss, and assuring the eventual award's enforcement. The lack of a consistent framework for granting and enforcing such reliefs raises a number of legal and procedural issues across jurisdictions.

This paper investigates the legislative framework, judicial trends, and practical issues involved in awarding interim relief in support of foreignseated arbitration in India. It delves into the growth of Indian arbitration legislation with the 2015 modifications, specifically Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. A comparative review of judicial approaches in the United Kingdom and Singapore identifies optimal practices and global trends. The paper also highlights major barriers to enforcing interim measures and offers reforms to improve the effectiveness and consistency of interim relief procedures in India, hence strengthening India's position as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. Keywords: Arbitration, interim reliefs, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, India, United Kingdom, Singapore

1. INTRODUCTION

Commercial Arbitration is a pivotal method of resolving disputes that arise in the business world, offering a structured yet flexible alternative to traditional litigation. Arbitration is a process that involves parties consenting to submit their case to a neutral third party, that is, the arbitrator or arbitral institution, with the resulting decision to be binding. It can be classified into two main types: institutional arbitration, where an established institution administers the process according to its rules, and ad hoc arbitration, where the parties develop their own procedural framework. It can address both domestic disputes, involving entities within the same country, and international disputes, where at least one party is from a foreign jurisdiction.

This method is highly regarded for its ability to preserve commercial relationships and utilize the specialized expertise of arbitrators in resolving complex commercial issues. The provision under section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 tells that the Indian courts are empowered to refer disputes to alternative dispute resolution methods, including arbitration, if parties agree to such an arrangement. Interim reliefs are basically protective measures that prevent irreparable injury, maintain the subject matter of the dispute, and secure the ultimate enforceability of arbitral rulings.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically addresses interim reliefs in Sections 9 and 17, providing mechanisms to grant temporary measures that ensure the effective conduct of arbitration and the eventual enforceability of the final award while it does not provide provisions for interim reliefs in foreign seated arbitration. Interim reliefs are basically protective measures that prevent irreparable injury, maintain the subject matter of the dispute, and secure the ultimate enforceability of arbitral rulings. The combination of court intervention and party autonomy creates serious concerns about the scope and amount of interim relief in foreign-seated arbitration. India's arbitration regime has undergone significant transformations following the amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

These revisions sought to harmonize Indian arbitration legislation with worldwide best practices and position India as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. However, the legal structure governing interim reliefs for foreign-seated arbitration is still being debated and scrutinized by the courts. This research paper seeks to analyze the legal framework governing interim reliefs in foreignseated arbitration in India, explore judicial trends, and examine the practical challenges

faced by parties seeking such reliefs. A comparative analysis of the legal regimes in the UK and Singapore will provide valuable insights into best practices and potential reforms.

2. Research Questions

1. What is the legal framework governing interim reliefs in aid of foreign-seated

arbitration in India?

2. How have judicial decisions in India shaped the scope and availability of interim reliefs

in foreign-seated arbitration post-2015 amendments?

3. What are the key challenges in granting and enforcing interim reliefs in foreign-seated

arbitration in India?

4. What are the approaches adopted by pro-arbitration jurisdictions in enforcing interim

reliefs granted by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals, and how can India adopt such practices?

3. Research Objectives

1. To examine the legal provisions governing interim reliefs in aid of foreign-seated

arbitration under Indian law.

2. To analyze the judicial trends and landmark decisions that have shaped the scope of

interim reliefs in India.

3. To identify the practical challenges faced by parties in obtaining and enforcing interim

reliefs in foreign-seated arbitration.

4. To analyze the enforcement mechanisms of interim reliefs in pro-arbitration

jurisdictions and suggest reforms for India's arbitration framework.

4. Research Methodology

The research follows a qualitative approach by critically analyzing legal provisions, judicial decisions, and comparative practices. The study adopts a comparative analysis method to highlight the global trends and propose suitable reforms to the Indian legal framework. The

analysis will also address the underlying principles of party autonomy, efficiency, and minimal judicial intervention in arbitration.

5. Arbitration Agreement – An Essential To Arbitration

An arbitration agreement is fundamental to the arbitration process, creating a binding procedure for dispute resolution between parties. The concepts of party autonomy and confidentiality make arbitration a preferred method for resolving disputes. Under the section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 it is provided that the arbitration agreement must be in writing, which can either be in the form of arbitration clause in a contract or a separate agreement. An arbitration agreement is said to be in writing if it is in: a. a document signed by the parties; b. an exchange of correspondence or communication between the parties; or c. an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other (section 7(4)).

6. Interim Reliefs In Foreign Seated Arbitrations-India’s Stance

Under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, interim reliefs can be granted by both courts and arbitral tribunals. A significant change in the arbitration framework occurred with the introduction of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. This amendment aligned the powers of arbitral tribunals to grant interim relief under Section 17 with those of courts under Section 9. Moreover, orders issued by arbitral tribunals under Section 17 were made enforceable in the same manner as court orders. With the arbitral tribunal's powers to grant interim relief being equated to those of the court, courts under Section 9 can entertain an application for interim relief only when 'the court determines that circumstances exist which might render the remedy provided under Section 17 ineffective'.

Unless otherwise agreed, Section 9 can be applied to foreign-seated arbitrations because Part II of the act lacks a provision for interim relief. Thus, parties to such arbitrations can seek

interim relief from Indian courts under Section 9. However, since there is no counterpart to

Section 17 in Part II and Section 17 does not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations, the process for enforcing interim orders from foreign arbitrations in India remains unclear. The 246th Law Commission Report suggested extending Section 9 to foreign-seated arbitrations, noting that if a party might quickly dissipate its assets, it would be hard for the other party to get an effective remedy if the seat of arbitration is abroad. In such cases, the other party has two options:

1. Obtain an interim order from a foreign court or tribunal and then file a civil suit in India

to enforce this order, as it can't be directly enforced through an execution petition.

2. If the former party ignores the foreign order, the later party can seek contempt

proceedings in the foreign court and then enforce the judgment in India. The Law Commission felt these options were impractical for enforcing interim orders. This view was supported by the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd and by the Delhi High Court in Big Charter Pvt. Ltd. v. Ezen Aviation Pty. Ltd. In the absence of a direct enforcement mechanism under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (the Act) for interim orders issued by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals, parties must

approach an Indian court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Act to seek relief under the interim measures granted by the arbitral tribunal. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court in HSBC v. Avitel Post. While such applications may rely on interim measures issued by a foreign-seated tribunal, the arbitral tribunal's interim order is neither binding or directly enforceable in India. Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Uphealth Holdings v. Glocal Healthcare Systems held that a foreign-seated emergency arbitration award may be considered as a supplementary factor under Section 9 while adjudicating the request for interim relief. However, the court clarified that such awards cannot be directly enforced due to the absence of a provision similar to Section 17(2) in Part II of the Act — which deals with foreign-seated arbitrations.

Therefore, reliance on Section 9 constitutes an independent action in aid of arbitration rather than an action for direct enforcement of the foreign-seated interim award. This gap highlights the lack of a

dedicated enforcement mechanism for interim reliefs in foreign-seated arbitrations under the Indian arbitration regime. In the case of Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, a single judge bench held that that seeking interim relief to secure the disputed amount might be ineffective if pursued before the Arbitral Tribunal. As a result, the courts are not barred from providing such relief under Section 9, in the context of foreign-seated arbitrations.

7. Need for the amendment in Indian law

Under the current legal framework, interim orders issued by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals are not binding or enforceable by Indian courts, undermining their purpose and effectiveness. Interim measures are important in arbitration because they seek to preserve the subject matter of the dispute, maintain the status quo, or provide immediate relief to the parties until the ultimate resolution. The non-enforceability of such rulings leaves a significant gap in the arbitration regime, especially in cross-border conflicts where prompt execution of interim remedies is critical to avoiding irreparable injury and ensuring that the final arbitral award remains meaningful. The distinction between the enforceability of interim orders from India-seated and foreignseated arbitral tribunals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") lacks a clear legal and practical basis.

Section 17(2) of the Act makes interim measures issued by arbitral tribunals in domestic arbitration enforceable, giving them the same standing as court orders under Section 9 of the Act. This legislative reform, the Arbitration and Conciliation (reform) Act of 2015, was introduced with the primary goal of improving the arbitral process's efficacy and lowering reliance on courts for interim relief. However, the same legal structure does not apply to interim orders granted by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals, placing parties in international arbitration at a disadvantage. The lack of enforceability for foreign-seated interim orders violates the Act's overarching policy goals, which seek to encourage arbitration as a viable and efficient alternative dispute settlement process.

International best practices, such as those included in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, advocate for the recognition and enforcement of interim measures regardless of the location of the arbitration. Jurisdictions like as Singapore and Hong Kong have created legal frameworks that allow for the enforcement of

foreign-seated interim measures, consolidating their pro-arbitration position and integrating local laws with global standards. Recognizing the binding nature of foreign-seated interim remedies would not only maintain party autonomy but also encourage confidence in India's arbitration structure, thereby contributing to the growth of international commercial arbitration in the country. In circumstances when arbitration is held outside of India and one of the parties' assets are located in India, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 authorizes Indian courts to award interim relief under Section 9 of the Act to protect or preserve those assets. Similarly, foreignseated arbitral tribunals may make interim orders to protect the assets of parties based in India.

In such cases, the remedy available before the arbitral tribunal should be as effective and enforceable as the remedy available before Indian courts, in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 9(3) of the Act. Furthermore, the absence of enforcement of such orders not only undermines the interim relief mechanism but also adds to the strain on Indian courts, as parties frequently use Section 9 applications to seek interim protection. This undermines the goal of arbitration as a streamlined and efficient dispute settlement process that strives to reduce the burden on the judiciary. To address this issue, the Act must be amended to make interim orders issued by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals more enforceable.

Such a change will align the Indian arbitration regime with worldwide best practices, strengthen India's standing as an arbitration-friendly country, and provide greater confidence to parties involved in cross-border transactions.

8. Approaches in other pro-arbitration jurisdictions

Introducing an enforcement mechanism for interim orders issued by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals would not only align with Article 17H of the UNCITRAL Model Law but also reflect the approach adopted by other pro-arbitration jurisdictions. For example, Section 61 of the Arbitration Ordinance in Hong Kong, which is modelled on Article 17H of the Model Law, stipulates that “an order or direction made, whether in or outside Hong Kong, in relation to arbitral proceedings by an arbitral tribunal is enforceable in the same manner as an order or direction of the Court that has the same effect, but only with the leave of the Court.”

Additionally, Section 22A of the Arbitration Ordinance contains a similar provision for the enforcement of emergency awards. In Singapore, a "arbitral award" under Section 27(1) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act, 1994, includes instructions or directions issued by the arbitral tribunal on any of the issues enumerated in Sections 12(1)(c) through (i). Notably, Section 12(1)(i) provides that "an interim injunction or any other interim measure," which allows interim orders issued by foreign-seated tribunals to be enforced in Singapore as arbitral judgments. This pro-enforcement stance was recently reinforced by the Singapore High Court in CVG v CVH. The court confirmed that an interim award given by an emergency arbitrator in a foreign-seated arbitration is enforceable in Singapore.

This decision highlights Singapore's arbitration-friendly legal framework, which seeks to uphold the enforceability of interim measures in both domestic and international arbitration settings. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Section 42 of the [English] Arbitration Act, 1996 authorizes courts to compel parties to comply with peremptory orders issued by arbitral tribunals. Although this provision primarily applies to arbitrations seated in the United Kingdom, courts may exercise this power in relation to foreign-seated arbitrations in two circumstances: (a) where no seat of arbitration has been designated or determined, and (b) where the arbitration has a sufficient connection with England, Wales, or Northern Ireland that it justifies the court's intervention.

According to the UK Law Commission's recent examination of the Arbitration Act of 1996, this technique may not require any amendments and may also apply to emergency arbitration awards. The Commission acknowledged that Section 42, while structured differently, produces an outcome akin to that under Articles 17H and 17I of the UNCITRAL Model Law — reinforcing the principle that interim orders should be capable of enforcement irrespective of the seat of arbitration. These examples highlight the global shift towards a more pro-arbitration enforcement framework, reflecting the increasing recognition of interim measures as an essential component of effective dispute resolution in cross-border commercial transactions.

9. Conclusion And Suggestions

In conclusion, the lack of a direct enforcement mechanism for interim reliefs issued by foreignseated arbitral courts is a serious impediment to India's arbitration environment. The

current system under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is based on the indirect path of seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Act, which not only increases judicial participation but also undermines the efficacy and autonomy of arbitration processes. To build a more arbitration-friendly legal environment, current rules must be reviewed and appropriate legislative revisions proposed. The following suggestions are placed to address present gaps:

1. Implementation of a Direct Enforcement Mechanism in Part II of the Act: A new

provision, similar to Section 17(2) of the Act, should be added into Part II to provide for the direct implementation of interim measures awarded by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals, eliminating the need for separate court applications under Section 9.

2. Extending the scope of section 17(2): Alternatively, Section 17(2) might be expanded

to include interim orders granted by both domestic and foreign-seated arbitral tribunals, ensuring that all interim orders are as enforceable as court rulings.

3. Recognition of emergency arbitration awards: The Act should clearly accept emergency

arbitration awards granted in foreign-seated arbitrations, aligning with arbitration friendly jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong. This would ensure that urgent interim reliefs are immediately enforceable.

4. Judicial consistency and pro-arbitration approach: Indian courts should follow a

consistent pro-arbitration approach when interpreting interim measures issued by foreign-seated tribunals, balancing party autonomy with international best practices.

5. Adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law Amendments: India might align its arbitration

framework with the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law Amendments, which allow for direct enforcement of interim measures imposed by arbitral tribunals. Implementing these changes would not only strengthen India's arbitration regime, but also align it with global best practices, reduce unnecessary judicial intervention, and promote a more investor-friendly dispute resolution system, strengthening its position as a leading international arbitration hub.

REFERENCES:

1.Muskan Agarwal & Amitanshu Saxena, Interim Measures of Protection in Aid of ForeignSeated Arbitrations: Judicial Misadventures and Legal Uncertainty, 2021 NLS BUS. L. REV. 73 (2021). https://heinonline-org-christuniversity.knimbus.com/HOL/License

2. Ritunjay Gupta & Vikas Maini, Section 9 Applicability to Foreign Arbitrations: 'Hydra Head'

of Concurrent Jurisdiction?, 5 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 235 (2022). https://heinonlineorg-christuniversity.knimbus.com/HOL/License

3. Ananya Verma, The Changing Stance of the Indian Judiciary towards Domestic Arbitrations

with a Foreign Seat, 2 IND. ARB. L. REV. 201 (2020). https://heinonlineorgchristuniversity.knimbus.com/HOL/License

4. Shanivi Singh, Arbitration in Commercial Disputes and Problem of Judicial Interference in

India, 14

SUPREMO

AMICUS

(2019). https://heinonlineorgchristuniversity.knimbus.com/HOL/License