Back
Says Indian Courts Remain Crucial for Urgent Relief Despite Rise of
The rapid growth of as a tool for obtaining has not diminished the practical importance of Indian courts, particularly when assets are at immediate risk, according to Partner . Speaking at a panel organized by the and during Singapore Convention Week , Nair emphasized that despite procedural recognition of emergency arbitrators, the speed and enforceability of court orders still make them the go-to option for many practitioners.
The discussion, titled The Expanding Reach of : A New Global Trend , brought together leading arbitration practitioners from India and Singapore. The panel also included Partner , MCIA Registrar and Secretary General , and independent counsel , with moderation by 's . The central question: when a client needs urgent protection, should counsel approach an or go directly to an Indian court?
Courts vs Emergency Arbitrators: Practical Realities
Nair offered a pragmatic perspective grounded in day-to-day practice. He noted that while institutional rules now permit the appointment of emergency arbitrators within a day or two, the reality is that an Indian court can often deliver a hearing faster. “As a practitioner, the first thing that you will do is move to the Indian court, because you know that if it is a Friday evening also, perhaps by Monday morning, you will probably get the matter listed. But can an MCIA or SIAC give me an interim award or an interim order by Monday morning? I'm not so sure. So, practically speaking, we will still run to the court,” he said.
The choice, Nair argued, depends on multiple factors: the location of the assets, the entity against whom the order must be enforced, and which remedy is the fastest and most effective. Where an asset in India faces an imminent threat, approaching the Indian court directly is often the safest route, rather than obtaining an emergency order abroad and then seeking enforcement in India. However, he acknowledged that could work well when relief operates solely against a contracting party and does not require assistance from third parties or state machinery.
The Amazon-Future Precedent
The conversation turned to the landmark ruling in , which recognised the concept of in the context of an . , who acted for Amazon in that dispute, explained that the judgment demonstrated the flexibility of India's to accommodate procedural innovations even without a specific statutory reference to emergency arbitrators.
Jha highlighted what he called the principle of “.” “Which means that if you have chosen through institutional rules, whether through the MCIA rules or the SIAC rules, you have to be considered to be bound,” he stated. This principle reinforces the and the parties’ obligation to follow the procedures they have agreed to.
But Jha cautioned that did not resolve all issues. The status of emergency orders arising from remains unsettled. He pointed to divergent approaches among Indian High Courts: while the Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts have generally taken a deferential stance toward such orders when considering relief under , the has adopted a more restrictive view. “So, I think, on balance, the deferential approach—the Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts' approach—I think that seems to be prevailing, and I think the 's slightly divergent approach may not last,” Jha opined.
Institutional Perspectives and Timelines
provided an institutional perspective, explaining MCIA's rules. The MCIA can appoint an within one business day, and that arbitrator is ordinarily required to issue a decision within 14 days. Yet she acknowledged that an institution cannot guarantee an order by Monday merely because an application was made on the preceding Friday. “But would you get your order on Monday? No. Because you will have to have that go through the process and deliver that order,” she said.
Sachdeva revealed that MCIA has handled only a small number of applications to date, but it has met the 14-day deadline in all but one case. In that outlier, the parties chose to continue with a full-fledged arbitration instead. She also noted that MCIA has consciously refrained from allowing emergency relief entirely without notice to the opposite party, given the existing position under Indian law. “I think we like to take a little bit more conservative view when it comes to EA, and maybe not for other things,” she added.
India's Growing Role in
offered a broader international perspective. Citing statistics from the , he said that India has been involved in about 140 emergency arbitrations since SIAC introduced the mechanism in . “So, outside Singapore, India is the largest litigant, in that sense, in the EA world,” he noted.
Banerjee pointed to the growing adoption of by arbitral institutions around the world, which could eventually reduce the need for parties to rush to courts for . “I think this is the way the future is. We will see all institutions slowly adopt this practice,” he predicted.
Foreign-Seated Orders: Unsettled Territory
Despite the progress, the panel agreed that Indian law still requires reform when it comes to foreign-seated . The lack of a clear statutory framework for enforcing orders from creates uncertainty. While some High Courts have shown deference, others have imposed stricter scrutiny. This patchwork approach undermines predictability for international parties considering India as a seat or as a place where assets are located.
Banerjee and Jha both noted that the judgment, while path-breaking, did not directly address cross-border enforcement issues. The 's recognition of was in the context of an , leaving the door open for future litigation on foreign-seated orders.
Looking Ahead: Reforms Needed
The panel concluded with a call for legislative or judicial clarity. As becomes a more common feature of international commercial disputes, India's arbitration ecosystem must evolve to provide consistent and reliable enforcement mechanisms. The differing High Court approaches on foreign-seated orders create possibilities and undermine the certainty that parties seek in arbitration.
Nair's closing remarks underscored the enduring importance of courts: “As a practitioner, you will always weigh the speed and enforceability of the remedy. Until can match the immediate responsiveness of a court—especially when assets are at risk—courts will remain the first port of call for urgent relief.”
The discussion highlighted that while is a valuable and growing tool, it has not yet replaced the court system for the most time-sensitive situations in India. For legal professionals advising clients on cross-border disputes, the choice between court and remains a strategic decision that must be made case by case.
