Enforcement of emergency relief in Indian arbitration

The enforceability of emergency relief granted by emergency arbitrators under institutional arbitration rules continues to pose legal challenges in India, despite growing international acceptance. While institutional rules such as those of the SIAC, ICC, and LCIA provide for emergency arbitration, Indian jurisprudence has not yet recognized emergency awards as directly enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Legal position post-Delhi Airport Dualling

The leading precedent in Union of India v. Hardy Exploration & Energy Services (2019) and subsequent decisions including Prism Rail Limited v. Gujarat Minerals Development Corporation (2021) have clarified that orders passed by emergency arbitrators cannot be enforced as decrees. However, parties may seek ad interim relief under Section 9 before an arbitral tribunal is constituted, which Indian courts may grant pending the constitution of the tribunal.

"An emergency award, though not executable per se, may serve as persuasive material for the court to exercise its discretion under Section 9,"

— as noted in recent Bombay High Court observations. The seat of arbitration plays a determinative role: if India is the seat, Indian law governs enforceability; if the seat is outside India, such awards may be treated as foreign awards under Part II of the Act, but only if the tribunal is properly constituted.

For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: parties should invoke Section 9 early and concurrently apply for emergency relief under institutional rules. Arbitration clauses should explicitly empower emergency arbitration and reference institutional rules to avoid challenges to the process.