Emergency Arbitrators cannot extend their own orders beyond 90 days as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, ensuring adherence to procedural limits established by law.

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

The instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as A&C Act) seeks to assail the impugned award dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Emergency Arbitrator in exercise of his power vested under Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2023).

2. Ms. Arundhati Katju, learned senior counsel for the appellant, in limine, submits that the Emergency Arbitrator has erred in extending the operation of the impugned order beyond a period of 90 days. According to her, Rule 14.13 of the Rules of 2023 empowers only the Arbitral Tribunal, and not the Emergency Arbitrator, to extend the operation of the award in the emergency arbitration proceeding beyond the period of 90 days. She has taken this Court through paragraph no.17 of the impugned award to justify her submission.

3. The aforesaid submission is vehemently opposed by Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondent. He contends that such a narrow reading of the Rule is impermissible, in as much as the Emergency Arbitrator is fully empowered to modify and even extend the period of operation of his award, beyond 90 days. He submits that the provision under Rule 14.13 nowhere suggests that the interim order cannot remain in operation beyond the period of 90 days.

4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Arb. P. 714/2025 between the same parties for constitution of Arbitral Tribunal, and he contends that the appellant herein had raised similar objections in the said proceedings, which were ultimately rejected by the Court in terms of paragraph no.12 thereof. He further submits that under the facts of the present case, ‘prima facie case’, ‘balance of convenience’ and ‘irreparable injury’ i.e., all the ingredients for granting interim relief tilt in his favour, and therefore, the Court may consider to affirm the order passed by the Emergency Arbitrator. According to him, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. He further points out that under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 2023, the term ‘Arbitral Tribunal’ is defined to include within its ambit, ‘Emergency Arbitrator’ and contends that since the Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to extend the operation of the emergency award, the Emergency Arbitrator is also vested with the same power.

5. Learned counsel for both the parties have made various other assertions against each other. However, for the point which is required to be adjudicated by the Court herein, all the said assertions may not have any relevance.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. Coming straight to the relevant rule, i.e., Rule 14.13 of the Rules of 2023, it would appear that the order passed by the Emergency Arbitrator shall remain operative for a period of 90 days from the date of passing of order, unless modified/ substituted, vacated, or extended by the Arbitral Tribunal. The aforesaid rule is extracted below, for reference:

“14. Emergency Arbitration

14.1 If a party requires urgent, interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal under the rules, it may make an application to DIAC, with a simultaneous copy thereof to the other party to the arbitration agreement, for such measures.

14.2 The party making such an application shall-

(a) include a statement briefly describing the nature and circumstances of the relief sought and specific reasons why such relief is required on an emergency basis and the reasons why the party is entitled to such relief