Case: Bhatia International Vs. Bulk Trading S.A.

The Appellant entered into a contract with the 1st Respondent on 9th May, 1997. This contract contained a arbitration clause which provided that arbitration was to be as per the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short ICC). On 23rd October, 1997 the 1st Respondent filed a request for arbitration with ICC. Parties agreed that the arbitration be held in Paris, France. ICC has appointed a sole arbitrator3. 1st Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the said Act) before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Indore, M.P. against the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. One of the interim reliefs sought was an order of injunction restraining these parties from alienating, transferring and/or creating third party right, disposing of, dealing with and/or selling their business assets and properties. The Appellant raised the plea of maintainability of such an application. The Appellant contended that Part I of the Act would not apply to arbitrations where the place of arbitration is not in India. This application was dismissed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge on 1st February, 2000. It was held that the Court at Indore had jurisdiction and the application was maintainable. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 10th October, 2000.

Reasoning:
It must be borne in mind that the very object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, was to establish a uniform legal framework for the fair and efficient settlement of disputes arising in international commercial arbitration. The conventional way of interpreting a statute is to seek the intention of its makers. If a statutory provision is open to more than one Interpretation then the Court has to choose that Interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature.It is in such a situation the Courts duty to expound arises with a caution that the Court should not try to legislate. While examining a particular provision of a statute to find outwhether the jurisdiction of a Court is ousted or not,the principle of universal application is that ordinarily the jurisdiction may not be ousted unless the very statutory provision explicitly indicates or even by inferential conclusion the Court arrives at the same when such a conclusion is the only conclusion26. Mr. Sen had also submitted that Part II, which deals with enforcement of foreign awards does not contain any provision similar to Section 9 or Section 17. As indicated earlier Mr. Sen had submitted that this indicated the intention of Legislature not to apply Sections 9 and 17 to arbitrations, like the present, which are taking place in a foreign country. The said Act is one consolidated and integrated ActA domestic award has to be enforced under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. All that Section 36 provides is that an enforcement of a domestic award is to take place after the time to make an application to set aside the award has expired or such an application has been refused. Section 9 does suggest that once an award is made an application for interim measure can only be made if the award is a domestic award as defined in Section 2(7) of the said Act. Thus where the Legislature wanted to restrict the applicability of Section 9 it has done so specifically29. We see no substance in the submission that there would be unnecessary interference by courts in arbitral proceedings. Section 5 provides that no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided. Section 9 does not permit any or all applications. It only permits applications for interim measures mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereof. Thus there cannot be applications under Section 9 for stay of arbitral proceedings or to challenge the existence or validity of arbitration agreements or the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. All such challenges would have to be made before the arbitral tribunal under the said Act30. Mr. Sen had also submitted that the term arbitral award includes an interim award. He had submitted that it would be open for the arbitral tribunal to pass interim awards and those interim awards could be enforced in India under Part II. However, there is a difference between an interim award and an interim order. Undoubtedly, the arbitral tribunal could pass an interim award. But an interim order or directions passed by the arbitral tribunal would not be enforceable in India. Thus even in respect of arbitrations covered by Part II a party would be precluded from getting any interim relief. In any event, on Mr. Sens interpretation, an award passed in arbitral proceedings held in a non-convention country could not be enforced. Thus such a partly would be left completely remediless32. To conclude we hold that the provisions of Part I would apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings relating thereto. Where such arbitration is held in India the provisions of Part I would compulsory apply and parties are free to deviate only to the extent permitted by the derogable provisions of Part I. In cases of international commercial arbitrations held out of India provisions of Part I would apply unless the parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions. In that case the laws or rules chosen by the parties would prevail. Any provision, in Part I, which is contrary to or excluded by that law or rules will not apply33. Faced with this situation Mr. Sen submits that, in this case the parties had agreed that the arbitration be as per the rules of ICC. He submits that thus by necessary implication Section 9 would not apply. In our view in such cases the question would be whether Section 9 gets excluded by the ICC Rules of Arbitration34. Thus Article 23 of the ICC rules permits parties to apply to a competent judicial authority for interim and conservatory measures. Therefore, in such cases an application can be made under Section 9 of the said Act35. Lastly it must be stated that the said Act does not appear to be a well drafted legislation. Therefore the High Courts of Orissa, Bombay, Madras, Delhi and Calcutta cannot be faulted for interpreting it in the manner indicated above. However, in our view a proper and conjoint reading of all the provisions indicates that Part I is to apply also to international commercial arbitrations which take place out of India, unless the parties by agreement, express or implied exclude it or any of its provisions. Such an interpretation does not lead to any conflict between any of the provisions of the said Act. On this interpretation there is no lacunae in the said Act. This interpretation also does not leave a party remedyless. Thus such an interpretation has to be preferred to the one adopted by the High Courts of Orissa, Bombay, Madras, Delhi and Calcutta. It will therefore have to be held that the contrary view taken by these High Courts is not good law.