The Court held in a recent ruling that it there is no such inference that can be drawn from the Arbitration Acct that restricts the parties to seek relief from emergency arbitrator.
Case of the Plaintiff
The petitioner, Future Retail contended that the Emergency award was passed by the arbitrator under the rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre was of no consequence and holds no value in the eyes of Indian laws as the same is not recognized in the Indian regime.
Case of the Defendant
Amazon on the other hand submitted that the parties had voluntarily to adopt the SIAC Rules as rules of engagement. It was also contended that Part I of the Arbitration Act contained no provision pertaining to restricting the powers of an Emergency Arbitrator.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that keeping in the independency of the parties intact is the basic objective of the Arbitration Act, it was also observed that it was “perfectly legal” for the parties to opt for a different procedural law, which was SIAC rules in the present case.
The only question which arises is to see whether the opted procedural law is parallel with the public policy of India or with the basic requirements of the procedural law under the Arbitration Act or are in contravention of the same.
The Court observed that Amazon and Future Group companies had voluntarily and mutually chosen the SIAC Rules for their execution of arbitration proceedings and the same provider for “Interim and Emergency Relief”’ via Emergency Arbitrator as well as approaching judicial
authority.
Thus, stating that the SIAC Rules therefore did not infringe the substantive right of the parties to approach the Courts in India for interim relief. On the question of exclusion of Section 9 in an International Commercial Arbitration under the Arbitration Act, the Court also opined that Section 9 was not a mandatory provision.
In the words of the Court:
"the SIAC Rules, themselves recognize and uphold the right to party to avail interim relief under Section 9 of the A & C Act. The SIAC rules however provide an option to the aggrieved party to either approach the emergency arbitrator for interim relief, or to approach a judicial authority for the same, prior to the constitution of the Tribunal. In the present case the parties had with wide open eyes left it for themselves, to choose between availing interim relief from the emergency arbitrator on the one hand, or the Courts under Section 9 of the A & C Act on the other hand. Thus, Amazon has exercised its choice of the forum for interim relief as per the arbitration agreement between the parties. Nothing in the A & C Act prohibits the parties from doing so.”
Case Details
Before: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Future Raetail v. Amazon
Coram: Honble Ms. Mukta Gupta
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://www.india.com/business/kishore-biyanis-future-group-retail-giant-amazon-enter-into-partnership-171156/
