Accessibility of Interim Relief While Selecting a Foreign Seat of Arbitration: A Misnomer or Reality

In this post, the authors highlighting the importance of interim measures under Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and had analysed the current position on selecting a foreign seat of arbitration and had answered the question of accessibility of interim reliefs in choosing a foreign seat of arbitration being not a misnomer but a reality with a pro-arbitration approach.


Impleading Alter Egos in Arbitration – Questioning the Jurisdiction of Tribunal

In this post, the author deals with the question on the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to implead alter egos, using the group company doctrine, in an arbitration proceeding. The author has referred to the recent Amazon judgement of the Delhi High Court to establish that impleadment of such entities cannot be categorised as a violation of the contours of Section 17, Arbitration Act.

Future Retail v. Amazon – Legality of Emergency Arbitrators in India

In this post, Abhi Udai Singh Gautam attempts to analyse the status of emergency arbitrators' awards in India. He explores both, the validity of such awards in domestic and foreign seated arbitration. The article attempts to deconstruct the recent Delhi High Court judgement in Future Retail v Investment Holdings, and also the existing case laws on emergency arbitration in India.

Can an Arbitral Tribunal Grant Interim Relief Against Third Parties?

In this post, the author seeks to challenge the rationale adopted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd by examining the expansion of powers of the arbitral tribunal to grant interim reliefs under Section 17 pursuant to the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Hong Kong – China Interim Measures Arrangement: A Giant Leap Ahead?

In this blog post, Prince Todi (3rd yr, HNLU) discusses the recent arrangement entered between HKSAR and the mainland China which enables the parties to Arbitrations seated outside China and administered by eligible arbitral institutions to seek interim measures through an application submitted to the Chinese Courts. The Arrangement makes Hong Kong the first and the only arbitral seat to provide this benefit to International Parties. Further, the Arrangement being reciprocal in nature enables parties to China-seated arbitrations to obtain similar benefit from the Courts in HKSAR. Among other things, the author has attempted to discuss the possible implications of the said arrangement and the complexities to be faced by others in adopting such an arrangement in the future.

Analysis of the Power of the Arbitral Tribunal to Order Attachment of Property

In this blog post, Jyotsna Punshi (4th-yr, NUALS, Kochi) writes about the power of the arbitral tribunal to order attachment of property u/s 17 of the Arbitration Act vis-à-vis Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. In order to present a clearer understanding of the current legal position, this article deliberates upon whether an arbitral tribunal can order an attachment of property as a grant of interim relief and whether in exercise of such power, the tribunal is under an obligation to act in accordance with the said provision of CPC in extensor.

The Conundrum Surrounding Interim Reliefs under the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

In this post, Anjali Singh analyses the dilemma surrounding the implication of the 2015 Amendment to interim reliefs in the arbitral proceedings and the powerplay between courts and tribunals. The author believes that it is pertinent to understand the nature and limitations of interim reliefs, which can be granted by courts and tribunals.