Understanding the Concept of Emergency Arbitration

In an arbitrable dispute, a delayed legal remedy can render the aggrieved party in tremendous loss.  In such a scenario constituting an arbitral tribunal can be a lengthy process, parties need emergency relief. That’s when emergency arbitration comes to their rescue. 

Emergency arbitration survives on two legal maxims:

1. Fumus Boni Iuris – Reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on merits 
2. Periculum In Mora– If the measure is not granted immediately, the loss would not and could not be compensated by way of damage 

An emergency arbitration like any other arbitration is “a creature of consent.” It is an urgent measure where the parties aim to maintain their status quo during the dispute’s pendency. They refer the matter to an emergency arbitrator before issuing arbitration notice and constituting an arbitral tribunal. 

Many prominent arbitral institutions, like: 

• Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)
• Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
• International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC)

have amended their rules to acknowledge emergency arbitration. Granting interim relief in the form of Emergency Award became possible after a new chapter IV A which replaced Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as UNCITRAL Model Law) was adopted by the on 7 July 2006. The new chapter under section 1,  Article 17 empowered arbitral tribunals to order interim measure at the party’s request. 

Indian law, i.e., the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), does not expressly recognize Emergency Arbitration. Even judicial precedents on the enforceability of an award passed in a foreign seated Emergency Arbitration are scant. 

Inclusion of Rules of Emergency Arbitration by Several Arbitral Institutions in India

Irrespective of the omission of the term “Emergency Arbitration” from the Act the Arbitral Institutions have made a new move. They have incorporated the term “Emergency Arbitration” in their rules and made procedures thereof that are mostly synonymous with leading arbitration institutions’ rules. 

S.No	Name of Arbitral Institutions	Section	Title of Section
1	The Delhi International Arbitration Center (DAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2018	Rule 14	Emergency Arbitration
2	Rules of Arbitration of International Chambers of Commerce	Article 29 r/w Appendix V	Emergency Arbitrator and Emergency Arbitrator Rules
3	Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2014	Rule 19 r/w Schedule A and Schedule D	Emergency Arbitrator
4	Mumbai Center for International Arbitration (MCIA) Rules, 2016	Rule 14	Emergency Arbitrator

Enforceability of awards of Emergency Arbitration in India

1. With respect to an award Passed by an Emergency Arbitrator by Arbitral Institutions in India 

Various Arbitral Institutions in India in its Rules such as:

• • The Delhi International Arbitration Center (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2018
  • Rules of Arbitration of International Chambers of Commerce
  • MHCAC Rules, 2014
  • MCIA Rules, 2016 

have included an Emergency Arbitrator in its definition of “Arbitral Tribunal”. Further, the term “Award” includes interim, partial and final award. Any interim relief that is given by the Emergency Arbitrator is enforceable in the manner provided under the Act. 

For instance, 

S.No	Name of Rules	Rule	Provision under Rule
1	The Delhi International Arbitration Center (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2018	Rule 14.8	The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the power to order any interim relief that he deems necessary. An order of the Emergency Arbitrator shall be made in writing, with a brief statement of reasons. An order or award of an Emergency Arbitrator shall be enforceable in the manner as provided in the Act
2	Rules of Arbitration of International Chambers of Commerce	Article 29(2)	The emergency arbitrator’s decision shall take the form of an order. The parties undertake to comply with any order made by the emergency arbitrator
3	MHCAC Rules, 2014	Rule 14.4	The Emergency Arbitrator shall have no power to act after the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted. The Arbitral Tribunal may reconsider, modify or vacate the interim award or order of emergency relief issued by the Emergency Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal shall not be bound by the reasons given by the Emergency Arbitrator. Any order or award issued by the Emergency Arbitrator shall, in any event, cease to be binding if the Arbitral Tribunal is not constituted within ninety days of such order or award or when the Arbitral Tribunal either modifies the same; or makes a final Award; or if the claim is withdrawn;
4	MCIA Rules,2016	Rule 14.7	The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the power to order or award any interim relief that he deems necessary. An order or award of the Emergency Arbitrator shall be made in writing, with a brief statement of reasons. An order or award of an Emergency Arbitrator shall comply with Rule 30.7 and, when made, shall take effect as an Award under Rule 30.12. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the power to modify or vacate the order or award for good cause shown.

Thus any interim award that is given by an emergency arbitrator through an arbitral tribunal constituted under Arbitral Institutions in India is enforceable u/s 17(2) of the Act which states that “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.” 

• With Respect To An Award Passed By An Emergency Arbitrator In An International Commercial Arbitration

International Commercial Arbitration

Article 1(3) of UNCITRAL Model Law states that “An arbitration is international if:

(a) the parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different States; or

(b) one of the following places is situated outside the State in which the parties have their places of business:

(i)  the place of arbitration if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration agreement;

(ii)  any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or the place with which the subject-matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or

(c) the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.”

Law applicable in an International Commercial Arbitration Agreement

Article 19 of UNCITRAL Model Law deals with “Determination of rules of procedure.” Clause 1  allows the parties to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings. 

Article 28 of UNCITRAL Model Law deals with Rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. It states that “The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with such rules of law as are chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules.” 

Thus, in international commercial arbitration, parties have the freedom of choosing the law governing their agreement. They can choose the substantive law governing the arbitration agreement as well as the procedural law governing the conduct of the arbitration. 

Three sets of law that apply are : 

1. Proper law of underlying Contract – The term ‘proper law of a contract means the system of law by which the parties intended the contract to be governed. If in case the parties do not give an express statement pertaining to the governing law, the same is to be inferred from the circumstances, the system of law with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection. 

The case where the parties do not give an express statement pertaining to the governing law 

In Jacobs Marcus & Co., v. The Credit Lyonnais, (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 589, the court observed that, “In the absence of an express statement about the governing law, the inferred intention of the parties determines that law. The true intention of the parties in the absence of an express selection has to be discovered by applying ” sound ideas of business, convenience and sense to the language of the contract itself”. 

In The Fehmarn, (1958) 1 All E.R. 333. the court held that

“Where the parties do not give an express statement about the proper law of contract by which they want to be governed the selection of courts of a particular country as having jurisdiction in matters arising under the contract is usually, but not invariably, be an indication of the intention of the parties that the system of law followed by those courts is the proper law by which they intend their contract to be governed. However, the mere selection of a particular place for submission to the jurisdiction of the courts or for the conduct of arbitration will not, in the absence of any other relevant connecting factor with that place, be sufficient to draw an inference as to the intention of the parties to be governed by the system of law prevalent in that place.”

1. Proper law of the Arbitration Agreement, also called Lex Arbitri – Lex arbitri is the law governing rights and obligations of the parties arising from their agreement to arbitrate and, in particular, their obligation to submit their disputes to arbitration and to honour an award. This determines: 

• the validity,  effect  and  interpretation   of   the arbitration agreement
• whether the arbitration clause is wide enough to cover the dispute between the parties or whether the arbitration clause is binding even if one of the parties allege that the contract is void, voidable, illegal or has been discharged by breach or frustration 
• whether the arbitration clause would equally apply to a different contract between the same parties or between one of those parties and a third party 

Proper law of the conduct of arbitration also called Lex Fori or Curial Law (Procedural Law): This law regulates the matters with respect to the procedural powers as well as duties of the arbitrators such as whether they must hear oral evidence, whether the evidence of one party should be recorded necessarily in the presence of the other party, whether there is a right of cross-examination of witnesses, the special requirements of notice, the remedies available to a party in respect of security for costs or for discovery etc. to the extent that those rules are applicable and sufficient and are not repugnant to the requirements of the procedural law and practice of the seat of arbitration. 

However, if the parties either expressly or by necessary implication do not choose the law that governs the procedural aspect of the conduct of arbitration then the same is determined by the law of the place or seat of arbitration. 

In Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. vs. Compania International De Seguros Peru, 1988 (1) Lloyds Law Report 116, Lord Justice Kerr summarised the state of the relevant jurisprudence thus:

“A. All contracts which provide for arbitration and contain a foreign element may involve three potentially relevant systems of law. (1) The law governing the substantive contract. (2) The law governing the agreement to arbitrate and the performance of that agreement. (3) The law governing the conduct of the arbitration. In the majority of cases all three will be the same. But (1) will often be different from (2) and (3). And occasionally, but rarely, (2) may also differ from (3).“

A. In National Thermal Power … vs Singer Company And Ors (1993 AIR 998), the parties entered into two formal agreements dated 17.8.1982 at New Delhi. In the General Terms and Conditions of Contract the parties agreed to : 

• • Apply Indian Law to their contract and decided that the court of Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction in all the matters arising under the Contract. 
  • Settle disputes by amicable settlement and if in case they fail by arbitration
  • Conduct arbitration at New Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the event of initiation of arbitration by Indian Contractor 
  • Conduct arbitration by three arbitrators, one each to be nominated by the Owner and the Contractor and the third to be named by the President of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris in accordance with the Rules of Cancellation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in the even of initiation of arbitration by Foreign Contractor 

The fundamental question that arose for consideration was:

1. Whether the arbitration agreement contained in the contract is governed by the law of India so as to save it from the ambit of the Foreign Awards Act and attract the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940? 

The court observed that, “The proper law of the contract in the present case being expressly stipulated to be the laws in force in India and the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi in all matters arising under the contract having been specifically accepted, and the parties not having chosen expressly or by implication a law different from the Indian law in regard to the agreement contained in the arbitration clause, the proper law governing the arbitration agreement is indeed the law in force in India, and the competent courts of this country must necessarily have jurisdiction over all matters concerning arbitration. Neither the rules of procedure for the conduct of arbitration contractually chosen by the parties (the ICC Rules) nor the mandatory requirements of the procedure followed in the courts of the country in which the arbitration is held can in any manner supersede the overriding jurisdiction and control of the Indian law and the Indian courts.” 

B. In Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. ONGC Ltd. &Ors., (1998 (1) SCC 305) Supreme Court defined the area of operation of curial law. It relied upon various foreign decisions and commentaries and concluded that:

(i) in the absence of an expressed agreement regarding the choice of curial law, the curial law would be the same as the law of the place of arbitration on the ground, that is the country most closely connected with the proceedings

(ii) it is open for the parties to choose a curial law which is different from the law governing the arbitration agreement; and 

(iii) when the law governing the arbitration agreement and the curial law are different, the Court will first look at the arbitration agreement to see if the dispute is arbitrable, then to the curial law to seek how the reference should be conducted and then return to the first law in order to give effect to the resulting award.

Precedents with respect to the validity of the award passed by an Emergency Arbitration in an International Commercial Arbitration

Awards originating from an Emergency Arbitration in an International Commercial Arbitration where the seat of arbitration is outside India were not recognised under the Act until 2015 when Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,2015 inserted a proviso under section 2(2) has increased the scope of section 9 of the Act. The proviso to section 2(2) states that, 

“This part shall apply where the place of arbitration is in India  

Provided that subject to an agreement to the contrary, the provisions of sections 9, 27 and section 37(1)(a) and (3) shall also apply to international commercial arbitration, even if the place of arbitration is outside India, and an arbitral award made or to be made in such place is enforceable and recognised under the provisions of Part II of this Act”. 

Because of this Indian courts now have started adopting a pro-enforcement approach towards such awards by allowing the parties to institute proceedings under section 9 of the Act which deals with, “Interim relief by court etc.” 

As per this section any party to an arbitration agreement to seek relief the following reliefs: 

(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a 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:—

• the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;
• securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;
• 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;
• an interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;
• such other interim measures of protection 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.

The parties can apply for the relief by way of an interim application: 

• Before the commencement of arbitral proceedings; or  
• After the pronouncement of the award but before its enforcement; or 
• When the remedy provided under section 17 of the Act is inefficacious 

“If in case the parties in an international commercial arbitration agreement explicitly excluded the applicability of Part I of the Act in their agreement and agree to be governed by different Rules and procedures, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Section 9 of the Act by way of an interim application.”

Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Educomp Professional Education Ltd. (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 23/2015 & CCP(O) 59/2016,IA Nos.25949/2015 & 2179/2016) was a petition under section 9 of the Act to seek a similar relief passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The dispute resolution clause provided that the agreement would be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Singapore and that proceedings would be conducted as per the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in Singapore. 

The main issues that arose for consideration were:

1. Whether the provisions of the Amendment Act apply to the present proceedings 

2. If the amended provisions are applicable, whether recourse to Section 9 of the Act is applicable by virtue of the proviso introduced in Section 2(2) of the Act by of the Amendment Act. 

The Delhi High Court acted as a torchbearer by granting interim relief in sync with the order of the emergency arbitrator. It held that

“95. The SIAC Rules are clearly in conformity with the UNCITRAL Model Law and permit the parties to approach the Court for interim relief. As pointed out earlier, UNCITRAL Model Law expressly provides for courts to grant interim orders in aid to proceedings held outside the State. And, the proviso to Section 2 (2) of the Act also enables a party to have recourse to Section 9 of the Act notwithstanding that the seat of arbitration is outside India. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that since the parties had agreed that the arbitration be conducted as per SIAC Rules, they had impliedly agreed that it would not be incompatible for them to approach the Courts for interim relief. This would also include Courts other than Singapore.

99. In the circumstances, the emergency award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be enforced under the Act and the only method for enforcing the same would be for the petitioner to file a suit.

100. However, in my view, a party seeking interim measures cannot be precluded from doing so only for the reason that it had obtained a similar order from an arbitral tribunal. Needless to state that the question whether the interim orders should be granted under section 9 of the Act or not would have to be considered by the Courts independent of the orders passed by the arbitral tribunal. Recourse to Section 9 of the Act is not available for the purpose of enforcing the orders of the arbitral tribunal; but that does not mean that the Court cannot independently apply its mind and grant interim relief in cases where it is warranted.” 

In Ashwani Minda and Anr. v. U-Shin Ltd. & Anr. (OMP (I) (COMM.) 90/2020) pertains to a dispute regarding a Joint Venture Agreement between an Indian Company (the appellant) and a Japanese company (respondent). 

The dispute resolution clause provided that :

‘Disputes, controversies or differences shall be submitted to the arbitration under the Commercial Rules of the India Commercial Arbitration Association to be held in India if initiated by [the Japanese Party], or under the Rules of the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association to be held in Japan if initiated by [the Indian Party].’

The Indian party commenced arbitration proceedings seated in Japan and applied for interim relief to restrain the Respondents from pursuing any action concerning the open offer to purchase shares above its existing 26% shares in the Joint Venture through an emergency arbitration under the rules of the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). However, the emergency arbitrator declined to grant the relief. Thereafter, the Indian party approached the Delhi High Court praying for the same interim relief under section 9 of the Act.

The issue that arose for consideration was:

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable under Section 9 of the Act? 

While dealing with the petition, the Delhi High Court limited its adjudication on the petition’s maintainability and held that, 

“ 54. The Dispute Resolution Mechanism agreed to, in the present case envisages conduct of Arbitration in Japan and regulated by the JCAA Rules. JCAA Rules provide a detailed mechanism for seeking interim and emergency measures and were known to the parties when entering into the Agreement. Reading of the Arbitration clauses clearly evinces the intention of the parties to exclude the applicability of part I of the Act. There is another important facet of this case. Article 77 (5) of the JCAA Rules makes it clear that the emergency measures are deemed to be interim measures granted by the Arbitral Tribunal when it is constituted. In fact, the provision further stipulates that the parties shall be bound by, and carry out, the emergency measures ordered by the Emergency Arbitrator and that the Emergency Measures shall remain in effect till suspended, modified or terminated under Article 78.2.

The court also held that:

• The applicants having unsuccessfully tried to obtain relief in an emergency arbitration, cannot have a second bite at the cherry by asking for the same interim relief from a court
• even as per the doctrine of election, the parties have chosen to go down the path of emergency arbitration, cannot seek relief from the court, and
• the court cannot effectively sit in appeal over the judgment of the emergency arbitrator 

In Future Retail v. Amazon.Com Investments Holdings LLC & Ors. (CS Comm 493/2020) the legal status of the Emergency Arbitrator and the consequential Emergency Arbitration order passed was under challenge. In the dispute resolution clause, the parties agreed that the law of contract and the law of arbitration would be Indian Law and Courts at New Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction; however, the arbitration would be conducted and governed by the Rules of SIAC. 

The issue that arose for consideration was:

1. Whether the Emergency Arbitrator lacks legal status under Part I of the Act and thus Coram non-judice?

The court while declaring the award passed by the Emergency Arbitrator as valid and not devoid of Coram non-judice held that,

“8.19 The Indian law of arbitration allows the parties to choose a procedural law different from the proper law, and this Court finds that there is nothing in the A&C Act that prohibits the contracting parties from obtaining emergency relief from an emergency arbitrator. An arbitrator‟s authority to act is implied from the agreement to arbitrate itself, and the same cannot be restricted to mean that the parties agreed to arbitrate before an arbitral tribunal only and not an Emergency Arbitrator. Further, the parties having deliberately left it open to themselves to seek interim relief from an emergency arbitrator, or the Court in terms of Rule 30.3 of SIAC Rules, the authority of the said emergency arbitrator cannot be invalidated merely because it does not strictly fall within the definition under Section 2(1)(d) of the A&C Act.

8.26 From a conspectus of the discussion above, this court arrives at the conclusion that Firstly, the parties in an international commercial arbitration seated in India can by agreement derogate from the provisions of Section 9 of the A&C Act; Secondly, in such a case where parties have expressly chosen a curial law which is different from the law governing the arbitration, the court would look at the curial law for the conduct of the arbitration to the extent that the same is not contrary to the public policy or the mandatory requirements of the law of the country in which arbitration is held; Thirdly, inasmuch as Section 9 of the A&C Act along with Sections 27, 37(1)(a) and 37(2) are derogable by virtue of the proviso to Section 2(2) in an international arbitration seated in India upon an agreement between the parties, it cannot be held that the provision of Emergency Arbitration under the SIAC rules are, per se, contrary to any mandatory provisions of the A&C Act. Hence the Emergency Arbitrator prima facie is not a Coram non-judice and the consequential EA order not invalid on this count.”

Thus, the parties only have section 9 of the Act as their recourse. This is because Part II of the Act, which deals with enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, only includes enforcement of final awards before the courts in India. Interim awards passed by in an emergency arbitration proceeding are not recognized under the Act.

 The validity of a Double-Tier Arbitration Agreement

In Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd ( CIVIL APPEAL NO.2562 OF 2006) the parties under clause 14 of their agreement agreed that if either of them is dissatisfied with the domestic award rendered in India, they would have the right to appeal in a second arbitration seated in London. 

The issues that arose for consideration was:

1. Whether a settlement of disputes or differences through a two-tier arbitration procedure as provided for in Clause 14 of the contract between the parties is permissible under the laws of India. 

Answering the issue in affirmative, the court held that, “ there is nothing in the A&C Act that prohibits the contracting parties from agreeing upon a second instance or the appellate arbitration-either explicitly or implicitly. No such prohibition or mandate can be read into the A&C Act except by an unreasonable and awkward misconstruction and by straining its language to a vanishing point. The Court further noted that despite granting finality to the domestic award as per the A&C Act, the parties deliberately and consciously chose to agree upon an appellate arbitration and that one party cannot wriggle out of solemn commitment made by it voluntarily.” 

Legislative Provisions related to the Enforceability of Emergency Awards Globally

Singapore 

Section 2(1) of the International Arbitration Act defines “Arbitral Tribunal” as 

“a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators or a permanent arbitral institution, and includes an emergency arbitrator appointed pursuant to the rules of arbitration agreed to or adopted by the parties including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organisation”. 

Section 12 of International Arbitration Act  which deals with Powers Of Arbitral Tribunal. Subsection (6) states that, 

“All orders or directions made or given by an arbitral tribunal in the course of an arbitration shall, by leave of the High Court or a Judge thereof, be enforceable in the same manner as if they were orders made by a court and, where leave is so given, judgment may be entered in terms of the order or direction”. 

Hong Kong 

Section 22B of Emergency Regulations Ordinance deals with Enforcement Of Emergency Relief Granted By Emergency Arbitrator. Subsection (1), states that, 

“Any emergency relief granted, whether in or outside Hong Kong, by an emergency arbitrator under the relevant arbitration rules 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.”

Way Ahead

Presently, Emergency Arbitration has stepped in as a turning tide for the global scenario. It has the capabilities of eliminating the hassle of applying before numerous forums in different jurisdictions for obtaining a single instant relief. Asian jurisdictions such as Singapore and Hong Kong have passed amendments to recognise the enforcement of  Emergency Awards. However, India still awaits formal recognition for enforcement of awards passed by Emergency Arbitrators. 

Although The 246th Law Commission Report, 2014 chaired by Justice AP Shah, recommended to “include in section 2, sub-section (1), clause (d), after the words “…panel of arbitrators” add “and, in the case of an arbitration conducted under the rules of an institution providing for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, includes such emergency arbitrator;” in the definition of Arbitral Tribunal. But the same was not incorporated in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. Despite this, Even the Report of the High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India, 2017 chaired by Justice B.N Srikrishna (Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India) recommended, “ Section (2)(1)(c) of the ACA may be amended to add the words “an emergency award” after the words “an interim award”. Section 2(1)(d) of the ACA may be amended to add the words “and, in the case of an arbitration conducted under the rules of an institution providing for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, includes such emergency arbitrator;” after the words “…panel of arbitrators”.

An emergency award may be defined as “an award made by an emergency arbitrator”.” However, even these were not incorporated in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,2019.  

Thus to make India a global hub for Arbitration and to strengthen the development of this method of dispute resolution in our country, there is a need to amend the Act to include the provisions that allow enforcement of emergency awards of all arbitral tribunals.

 
AUTHOR

SHRUTI KAKKAR
Senior Intern, Indian Law Watch
B.A LL.B, Pursuing Post Graduation at Delhi University