Naresh H. Patil, J.

This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28th April, 2017 in Comm Arbitration Petition (l) No. 208/2017. The respondent herein Aircon Beibars FZE (original petitioner) holds a foreign award passed on 25th January, 2017 for an amount of approximately US$7 million equivalent to Rs.46 Crores against the appellant herein Heligo Charters Pvt. Ltd. The award was made pursuant to reference of disputes under the Arbitration Clause contained in Clause 7 of the Settlement Deed dated 9th September, 2014. The Award was passed in Singapore.

2. The original respondent-appellant herein did not challenge the Award in the Singapore Court. It has thus become final. It is the contention of the respondent herein that the appellant has failed to pay awarded amount of US$ 7 million/Rs.46 Crores.

3. The Respondent herein had filed Arbitration Petition No.269/2017 wherein it was pointed out that only significant asset that the appellant/Heligo has in India, is a helicopter which it uses for ONGC operations. The respondent expressed apprehension that appellant might move the helicopter from the jurisdiction of the Court or might encumber or alienate the same to prevent the same from being proceeded against in enforcement of the said Award. Therefore, the petitioner had sought relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (as amended by Amendment Act of 2015) to restrain the respondent from alienating, encumbering, or parting with possession of the Helicopter and from removing it from the jurisdiction of the Court, pending enforcement of the Foreign Award under Part II of the Arbitration Act.

4. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28th April, 2017 confirmed the adinterim injunction.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vikram Nankani appearing for the appellant submitted that the question of law arising herein is what the law in force in India was on the date on which the Arbitration Agreement was entered into by the parties. Clause 7 of the Settlement Deed dated 9th September, 2014 reads as under:

“7. GOVERNING LAW AND ARBITRATION This DEED shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Singapore Law and any and all disputes, matters, differences of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising out of this DEED shall be referred to arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) for the time being in force. The Arbitration shall be conducted in English and the parties shall endure to have the Arbitration concluded within three (3) months of it being called for. Each of the Buyer and the Seller shall be entitled to nominate an Arbitrator. The two appointed arbitrators shall within a period of no more than (10) days appoint a third arbitrator such that the tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. If upon the receipt by the Buyer or the Seller (as the case may be) of the nomination, in writing, of the appointment of an arbitrator, Buyer or the Seller (as the case may be) shall appoint their arbitrator within 14 days, failing which the arbitrator already appointed shall act as a sole arbitrator.”

6. In the written submissions it is submitted that the Scheme of the Arbitration Act vis-a-vis foreign seated arbitration does not permit the respondent to approach courts in India under Section 9 of the Act. This submission is based on the fact that the parties had executed the Settlement Deed, and consequently the Arbitration Agreement, prior to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and had agreed to seat their arbitration in Singapore. The parties have excluded availability of Part-I of the Act, including Section 9 of the Act. The law in India was settled by the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminum Co. vs. Kaiser Technical Service (2012) 9 SCC 552 ('BALCO' for short). It was held that Section 9 of the Act was not applicable to foreign seated International Commercial Arbitration. The BALCO judgment