- 01-Nov-2025
- public international law
Emergency arbitrators (EAs) play a crucial role in providing urgent interim relief during arbitration proceedings. However, the enforceability of an emergency arbitrator’s award is a topic of legal debate, especially in jurisdictions like India. While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) does not specifically address the enforceability of such awards, Indian courts have increasingly recognized the importance of emergency relief, particularly in international arbitration. Understanding the enforceability of these awards in India requires exploring both the statutory framework and the judicial approach towards interim orders in arbitration.
Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows for interim measures by the arbitral tribunal, but this provision does not directly cover emergency arbitrators.
The Indian courts have, however, held that the interim relief granted by an emergency arbitrator can be recognized and enforced under the broad powers given to arbitral tribunals.
In 2016, the Supreme Court of India, in the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Siemens Ltd. case, held that interim orders passed by an emergency arbitrator could be recognized by Indian courts as long as they are in line with Indian public policy and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In this case, the Court emphasized that emergency relief provided by an emergency arbitrator could be enforced in India as interim measures under the arbitration agreement.
Courts are now more open to enforcing emergency awards, particularly in cases involving international arbitration, where the New York Convention applies. This convention encourages recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, including emergency awards, provided they comply with public policy.
Domestic Awards: While Indian courts generally accept and enforce awards from domestic arbitral tribunals, the enforceability of an emergency arbitrator’s award is still a matter of legal interpretation, as the Indian statute does not explicitly address emergency arbitrators.
Foreign Awards: In the case of international arbitration, emergency arbitrator awards are more likely to be recognized and enforced in India, particularly if they meet the conditions of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).
If an emergency arbitrator’s award has been granted in an international arbitration proceeding, it may be enforced in India under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides the grounds for refusing the enforcement of foreign awards.
Emergency arbitrator awards can be refused enforcement in India if they violate the country’s public policy. Indian courts are likely to scrutinize whether the award is in conflict with India’s legal principles, including issues of fairness, justice, and international comity.
The award must align with the terms of the arbitration agreement. If the emergency arbitrator's authority and the underlying arbitration agreement are in question, enforcement may not be granted.
Emergency awards are typically interim in nature and provide temporary relief. Their enforcement is contingent upon their connection to the overall arbitral proceedings and whether the full tribunal ultimately upholds or modifies the award.
A party seeking to enforce an emergency arbitrator’s award must approach an Indian court with jurisdiction, typically under Section 9 or Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 9 allows a party to apply to the court for interim measures before or during arbitration, while Section 17 empowers the tribunal to grant interim relief once it is constituted.
While Section 9 does not explicitly mention emergency arbitrators, courts have interpreted this provision flexibly to allow enforcement of emergency arbitrator awards.
The party seeking enforcement should file a petition in the relevant court, providing a copy of the emergency award. The court will examine whether the award adheres to Indian legal principles, such as public policy, and whether it falls within the purview of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Indian courts have discretion in determining the enforceability of emergency awards. Courts generally focus on the nature of the relief, the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and the absence of any fundamental flaws in the award (e.g., bias or jurisdictional issues).
A company, ABC Ltd., is engaged in an international arbitration dispute with XYZ Corp.. The arbitral institution, under its rules, appoints an emergency arbitrator to grant interim relief to ABC Ltd., preventing XYZ Corp. from transferring critical assets pending the arbitration.
The emergency arbitrator issues an order in favor of ABC Ltd., restraining XYZ Corp. from transferring assets.
ABC Ltd. files an application in the Delhi High Court to enforce the emergency arbitrator’s award under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the award should be treated as binding under the international arbitration rules.
The Delhi High Court, after reviewing the award and the arbitration agreement, decides to enforce the emergency award, as it aligns with India's public policy and the relevant arbitration laws. The court issues a directive to freeze XYZ Corp.’s assets in India.
Emergency arbitrator awards can be enforced in India, particularly under international arbitration frameworks. While Indian law does not directly address the enforceability of such awards, Indian courts have increasingly recognized their legitimacy, especially when the awards are in line with public policy and arbitration agreements. The courts' approach is flexible, and enforcement is possible in both domestic and international contexts, depending on the specifics of the case.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
