Summary: The Bombay High Court has recently, in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International and Malaney Trading & Services LLP v. Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. granted interim relief in foreign seated arbitrations. Providing guidance on the requirements for obtaining such interim protection, the Court has reiterated that parties to foreign seated arbitrations have the option of approaching Indian Courts to preserve the underlying subject matter of their dispute. This approach upholds party autonomy, which is the very basis of arbitration, and is in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law. This post draws upon past experiences to highlight key takeaways for parties seeking such relief.
Introduction
Building on existing jurisprudence[1] on interim relief under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Indian Arbitration Act”), in foreign seated arbitrations, the Bombay High Court (“BHC”) has recently granted interim protection in two cases. The BHC has reiterated that since interim orders issued by foreign seated arbitral tribunals are not directly enforceable in India, the existence of this remedy does not prevent recourse to Indian courts for interim relief.
In Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International (“Norvic Shipping”),[2]the BHC granted interim protection in an ongoing London seated international commercial arbitration under the LMAA[3] Terms. The BHC also took the opportunity to set out key requirements for obtaining interim relief in a foreign seated international commercial arbitration. Subsequently, in Malaney Trading & Services LLP v. Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. and Others (“Malaney”),[4] the BHC granted interim protection in a foreign seated arbitration administered by the Netherlands Arbitration Institute. In Malaney, the BHC highlighted that the mere existence of interim relief in the rules of the administering arbitral institution does not oust the jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act. These rulings underscore the ongoing commitment of Indian courts in preserving the arbitral process and ensuring that foreign seated arbitration awards do not exist solely as paper decrees.
Brief Factual Background
In Norvic Shipping, the dispute between the parties arose out of a Repayment Schedule Agreement. The respondent’s liability for an amount of USD 215,310.01 towards demurrage was undisputed. The LMAA arbitration commenced on March 27, 2026, before a sole arbitrator. The petitioner inter alia submitted that (i) despite several reminders, the respondent had not made any payment; (ii) the amount claimed was admitted and hence required protection till the arbitration was decided; (iii) even if the LMAA tribunal had the power to grant interim relief, such an order could not be directly enforced in India; and (iv) it was thus necessary to secure the respondent’s assets in India so that the award did not become a paper decree. The respondent inter alia submitted that (i) a part of the petitioner’s claim was subject to an oral set-off; (ii) the petition did not contain any allegation that the respondent was trying to dissipate or remove its assets; (iii) it was facing financial difficulties and thus could not make payment; and (iv) its overall financial condition is not sound. The BHC inter alia found that (i) the petitioner had demonstrated a strong prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience was in its favour; and (ii) the record disclosed objective material, indicating the possibility of diminution of the respondent’s available assets. Thus, the BHC directed the respondent to secure the petitioner’s claim until the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and subsequent enforcement of the arbitral award, thus granting interim protection to the petitioner.
In Malaney, the dispute was related to a Commercial Agency and Distribution Agreement (“Agency Agreement”) between Malaney Trading & Services LLP and Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. Per the Agency Agreement, Malaney Trading was the exclusive distributor of Uzer Makina’s technology in India, which was relevant for the Indian tyre industry.
Malaney was entitled to commission on any of Uzer Makina’s transactions in India. CEAT Limited and MRF Limited (respondent number 2 and 3, respectively) are Indian tyre manufacturers, who had utilised Uzer Makina’s technology. Uzer Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi Ve Tic. A.S. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uzer Makina. MRF Limited had made several remittances to this subsidiary entity in the past. Previously, the BHC had held that MRF Limited would have to issue a ten-day prior notice to Malanet Trading before making any payment to Uzer Makina, to enable it to obtain interim protection in such respect (“BHC’s Direction”). Accordingly, MRF gave payment notice to Uzer Makina’s subsidiary.
Malaney Trading sought interim relief from the BHC. Subsequently, an arbitral award was rendered, granting certain claims advanced by Malaney Trading. Uzer Ithalat was then added as respondent number 4 to its petition. During the arbitral proceedings, Malaney Trading discovered that Uzer Makina and Uzer Ithalat exported technology worth EURO 1.5 million to MRF Limited, for which MRF had made payments in breach of the BHC’s Direction. The BHC inter alia held that (i) MRF had flouted the BHC’s Direction; (ii) the conduct of the parties indicated that by the time the award would be recognised and enforced, the fruits of the arbitration could be jeopardised; and (iii) it was thus equitable and necessary to grant interim relief in this case.
Key Takeaways
- Indian courts will entertain applications for interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations, even if applicable institutional arbitration rules provide for interim relief by an emergency arbitrator. Selecting these rules does not exclude parties (expressly or implied) from accessing Indian courts for interim relief.
- Even though Section 9(3)[5] provides that Indian courts will not ordinarily entertain interim relief applications once an arbitral tribunal has been constituted, this restriction does not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations because interim orders passed by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals are not directly enforceable in India (unlike interim orders passed by arbitral tribunals seated in India)[6]. A foreign-seated emergency arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal’s interim order can only be enforced by approaching an Indian court for interim relief in terms of such order.[7] Hence, the alternate remedy of approaching a foreign-seated arbitral tribunal or emergency arbitrator falls outside the efficacy requirement under Section 9(3).
- When considering an application for interim relief in aid of arbitration, Indian courts are concerned with preserving the effectiveness of the arbitral proceedings. If they are satisfied that there exists a reasonable possibility of the respondent’s asset base materially reducing before an arbitral award can be enforced, they will intervene to prevent the arbitral award from being frustrated.
- Where an arbitral award is yet to be made in favour of the applicant, the applicant must establish a strong prima facie case for protection and satisfy the requirement of irreparable prejudice to obtain interim relief. Indian courts will consider whether refusal of interim protection may result in the claimant obtaining an arbitral award, which cannot be enforced because assets are no longer available. If the respondent is financially sound, possesses sufficient assets and there is no material showing any reduction of assets, interim relief is unlikely to be granted. In this regard, the power to grant such interim relief under Section 9 is not fettered by the more rigorous requirements applicable to ordinary civil suits.[8]
Conclusion
The rulings discussed above demonstrate the continued emphasis that Indian courts’ place on effective interim relief. They are also in line with Article 9 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration[9]. They recognise that the remedy of approaching a foreign-seated arbitral tribunal for interim relief is not efficacious since the successful party will in any case have to approach an Indian court for enforcement of such order. A party ought not to be forced to undertake this two-stage process, at additional time and expense, when they can directly approach an Indian court.
[1] Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2112.
[2] Judgment dated 2 July 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 15734 of 2026.
[3] London Maritime Arbitration Association.
[4] Judgment dated 7 July 2026 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 228 of 2022.
[5] Section 9(3) provides “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”.
[6] Section 17(2) provides “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”.
[7] Raffles Design International India Private Limited & Anr. v. Educomp Professional Education Limited & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5521
[8] Nimbus Communications Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 287
[9] Article 9 provides “It is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before or during arbitral proceedings, from a court an interim measure of protection and for a court to grant such measure.”
Recent Comments