- India—parties cannot apply to courts after emergency arbitration (Ashwani Minda v U-Shin)
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was the background to this decision?
- What did the court decide?
- Concerns with implied exclusion of section 9
Arbitration analysis: The Delhi High Court found a petition for interim reliefs under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (ACA 1996), filed after the party had unsuccessfully applied for reliefs in an Emergency Arbitration in Japan, was not maintainable on multiple grounds. This ruling, while highlighting the growing importance of emergency arbitration, also finds that the parties had by agreement excluded the applicability of ACA 1996, s 9, which raises certain questions. Vyapak Desai, head of the International Dispute Resolution and Investigations at Nishith Desai Associates and Ashish Kabra, leader, Singapore office of Nishith Desai Associates discuss this decision.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial