Audley Sheppard & Jo Delaney welcome moves towards a less interventionist approach by Indian courts
The Supreme Court of India has significantly limited the extent to which Indian courts can intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations. The ruling, given by a five-judge constitutional bench in Bharat Aluminium Co v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc (Supreme Court, 6 September 2012), reverses the controversial decision issued in Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA (2002) 4 SCC 105. That decision had opened the door for heavy-handed intervention by the Indian courts.
Application of Pt I
Bharat Aluminium concerned the application of Pt I and Pt II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Indian Act). Part I relates to the commencement and conduct of arbitration proceedings. It includes provisions relating to the appointment of arbitrators, the granting of interim measures and grounds upon which an award may be set aside. Part I was intended to apply to arbitrations conducted in India. Part II provides for the enforcement of awards made outside India.
In
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
