UNCITRAL Model Law

Bombay High Court considers interim relief jurisprudence in foreign seated arbitrations

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.

Continue Reading Bombay High Court considers interim relief jurisprudence in foreign seated arbitrations
After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?

Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with the winning party, the Court held that even an unsuccessful party may seek interim measures after an arbitral award, provided the case is rare, compelling, and demands judicial restraint. By rejecting the “fruits of the award” doctrine and reaffirming the plain statutory language of “any party,” the judgment restores Section 9 to its full amplitude while carefully safeguarding arbitral finality. This decision marks a pivotal shift in Indian arbitration law, balancing textual fidelity with commercial and procedural realism.

Continue Reading After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?