الهيئة الدولية للتحكيم

الهيئة الدولية للتحكيم ، التحكيم في الهند: نظرة عامة

ARBITRATION IN INDIA: AN OVERVIEW

Scheme of the Act:

innovation by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading2. Here the
Indian courts jurisdiction was invoked by a party seeking interim measures of protection in
relation to an arbitration under the ICC Rules to be conducted in Paris. The provision for interim
measure (section 9) was to be found in Part I alone (which applies only to domestic arbitration).
Hence the Court was faced with a situation that there was no proprio vigore legal provision
under which it could grant interim measure of protection. Creatively interpreting the Act, the
Supreme Court held that the “general provisions” of Part I would apply also to offshore
arbitrations, unless the parties expressly or impliedly exclude applicability of the same. Hence by
judicial innovation, the Supreme Court extended applicability of the general provisions of Part I
to off-shore arbitrations as well.
It may be stated that this was premised on the assumption that the Indian Court would otherwise
have jurisdiction in relation to the matter (in the international sense). This became clear in a
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Shreejee Traco (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Paperline
International Inc.3 Here the Court’s assistance was sought for appointing an arbitrator in an off-
shore arbitration. The power of appointment by court exists under Section 11 of Part I of the Act.
The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. It found that the arbitration was to be conducted in
New York and that the law governing the arbitration proceedings would be the law of seat of the
arbitration. Hence, the extension of Part I provisions to foreign arbitrations sanctified by Bhatia4
could not be resorted to in every case. The Indian Courts would have to first determine if it has
jurisdiction, in the international sense.



الهيئة الدولية للتحكيم