The court affirmed its jurisdiction to grant interim relief for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on asset location, in line with the amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act provisions effective from 2015.

1. A short but interesting issue arises in this petition filed under S.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), before the parties could be heard on the merits of the matter. The petitioner who holds a foreign arbitral award against the respondent, seeks interim reliefs pending enforcement and execution of a foreign arbitral award. On behalf of the respondent an objection has been raised as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, referring to the amended provisions of the Act, incorporated by the Amendment Act No.3 of 2016, with effect from 23 October, 2015 (for short 'the 2015 Amendment Act'). The focus of the arguments as advanced on behalf of the parties, thus are the provisions of the Act, as amended by the 2015 amendment Act. By virtue of the amended provisions, the definition of 'Court' under S.2(1)(e) of the Act stands amended inter alia in relation to an international commercial arbitration. Further a 'proviso' has been inserted to sub-section (2) of S.2, making the provisions of S.9, S.27 and clause (a) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of S.37 of the Act applicable to international commercial arbitrations, 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 the Act. The definition of 'Court' as contained in the 'Explanation' to S.47 of the Act also stands amended by conferring jurisdiction exclusively on the High Court to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the award.

2. FACTS
The controversy envelopes under the following factual matrix: -
(i) The petitioner in this petition has invoked S.9 of the Act read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') seeking interim reliefs, to secure the award amounts, which would entail to its benefit in the international commercial arbitration held between the petitioner - Trammo DMCC (formerly known as Transammonia DMCC) as the claimant and the respondent. The arbitral awards were made and published in London, being (a) First Interim Final Award, dated 4 December, 2015 (as amended on 4 July, 2016), (b) the First Costs Award, dated 5 February, 2016 as amended on 16 February, 2016 and 4 July, 2016; and (c) the Costs of Costs Award, dated 10 March, 2016 (as amended on 4 July, 2016); (d) second Interim Final Award dated 20 September, 2016; (e) third Interim Final Award, dated 25 November, 2016 (as amended on 14 December, 2016). Under these Awards, the petitioner has claims to be entitled and the respondent liable to pay to the petitioner, an amount of US $ 16,427,310.80 and GB 606,628.29 £l
(ii) It is not in dispute that the arbitral awards are foreign awards as defined under S.44 of the Act. Under the provisions of the Act, the enforcement and recognition of the Arbitral Awards are governed by Part II of the Act. The respondent has not challenged the arbitral awards before the appropriate foreign Court. The petitioner, therefore, has also filed proceedings under S.47 read with S.49 of the Act before this Court, being Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No.340 of 2017, inter alia seeking enforcement and execution of the awards and for reliefs as more particularly prayed thereunder.
(iii) The petitioner, however, at an earlier point of time had bona fide believed, that the respondent possessed assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in the form of money lying in the respondent's - bank account at New Delhi and accordingly had file