A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a
landmark judgment on September 6, 2012 in Bharat Aluminium Co v
Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc superseding the
doctrine laid down by it earlier in Bhatia International v Bulk
Trading S.A. ("Bhatia International") in the year
2002. In Bhatia International case, the Supreme Court had held that
Part I of the [Indian] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
("Arbitration Act"), dealing with the power of a court to
grant interim relief, could be applied to arbitration having a
foreign seat unless the parties specifically opted out of such an
Now, the Court has held that Part I of the Arbitration Act would
have no application to international commercial arbitration held
outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be
enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in
Part II of the Arbitration Act. The provisions contained in
Arbitration Act make it crystal clear that there can be no
overlapping or intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I
with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration
The Court further held that the provision contained in Section
2(2) of the Arbitration Act is not in conflict with any of the
provisions of either Part I or Part II of the Arbitration Act. In
an international commercial arbitration having foreign seat, no
application for interim relief would be maintainable under Section
9 or any other provision, as applicability of Part I of the
Arbitration Act is limited to all arbitrations which take place in
India. Similarly, no suit for interim injunction simplicitor would
be maintainable in India, on the basis of an international
commercial arbitration having seat outside India.
Therefore, the Part I of the Arbitration Act is applicable only
to all the arbitrations which take place within the territory of
India. The Supreme Court has also held that the doctrine laid down
in this case shall apply prospectively and the doctrine laid down
in Bhatia International shall hold good for the arbitration
agreements entered prior to this ruling.
Editorial Team: Bomi F. Daruwala, Gautam Chopra, Hemant
Puthran, Rupesh Jain and Shilpi Shivangi
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should
be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in
this article are solely of the authors of this article.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In its judgment of Booze Allen & Hamilton Inc. v SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors [ ] the Supreme Court of India had listed six categories of disputes which are non – arbitrable, these included (i) disputes which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences, ..
The Supreme Court in the case of Etizen Bulk A/S v Ashapura Minechem Ltd. has stated that the mere choosing of a juridical seat of arbitration would automatically attract the law applicable to such a location.
Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. There are two avenues available for the enforcement of foreign awards in India, viz., the New York Convention and the Geneva Convention, as the case may be.
Per incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care", refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).