Introduction
Commercial disputes presently have a significant trend towards arbitration, and parties seem more interested in its speed, confidentiality, flexibility, and expertise-driven resolution rather than litigating in the courts. In this regard, the need for interim relief which proves effective has grown tremendously, since urgent measures may be basic to guarantee preservation of the status quo, prevention of irreparable harm, and/or securing assets until the final award is rendered. Emergency arbitration in India has thus become an essential mechanism to provide such urgent interim protection, pending the constitution of the full arbitral tribunal. In particular, under institutional rules-the SIAC, ICC, or others-parties can obtain the rapid appointment of an emergency arbitrator who may issue binding interim orders or awards in urgent situations, usually within days.
Traditionally, India lacked explicit statutory clarity with respect to the enforceability of emergency arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The previous judicial interpretations were thus muddled; different courts had shown timidity in recognizing the jurisdiction of the emergency arbitrator or even enforcing the decision made by it in particular India-seated arbitrations.
The precedent-setting Amazon-Future case, relating to Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC and Future Retail Ltd, has significantly impacted this regime. In this historic matter, an emergency arbitration award was issued in 2020 by an emergency arbitrator appointed before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), restraining Future Retail from going ahead with a proposed deal. The Delhi High Court upheld this award as an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation ( Enforcement, Validation and Application) Act, 1996 (the ‘Act’), and this has been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in August 2021, holding that an emergency arbitration award made in India-seated arbitrations is treatable as an interim order under Section 17(1), and this is also self-executable as a court order under Section 17(2).
Later cases decided by the Delhi High Court have expanded on this basis, further defining the rules and their applications in related cases in the same litigation. Notwithstanding the historic judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court in 2021 in the Amazon v. Future Retail case, reaffirming the enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders in India-seated arbitrations under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there still exist several operational realities that obstruct the efficient use of emergency arbitration in India as of 2026. These include, among others, the absence of any direct recognition under the Act, under which courts can potentially afford to deny direct enforcement in foreign-seated arbitrations and instead seek relief under Section 9, causing potential delay, duplication, and increased costs. This has led to the mechanism being effectively out of reach for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) due to the hefty costs charged by international institutions such as SIAC or ICC, making it a truly “elite tool” of highly capable companies. Recent changes, such as the SIAC Rules 2025 that have been adopted, making the issuance of ex-party Protective Preliminary Orders (PPOs) available, have added more doubts about the mechanism’s effective enforcement in the Indian scenario, in view of the lack of notice and fair hearing guarantees, that do not necessarily align with the principles of natural justice. Although the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes the inclusion of the governed mechanism of emergency arbitration through a Section 9A, it is still pending, leaving the controversy still hanging in thin air. Despite the awakening impact of the Amazon-Future decision of the Delhi High Court, challenges still arise in perfecting the mechanism through effective, cost-effective, cross-border efficiency, and procedural loopholes, which still mark the full realization of the mechanism within the current context of the Indian arbitration scenario.
This paper examines the development and present regime of emergency arbitration in India, specifically in relation to the practical issues, consequences, and outstanding questions which have arisen in the aftermath of the Amazon-Future dispute and the Delhi High Court decisions.
Concept and meaning of emergency arbitration
Emergency arbitration is another specific procedure in arbitration, enabling the party involved in the dispute to obtain, before the full arbitral tribunal is formed, interim relief from the specially designated arbitrator. It has been created to provide an urgent solution for cases when the approaching process of forming the arbitral tribunal, including nominations, appointments, confirmations, challenges, and the resulting potential irreparable harm such as destruction of assets, breach of contract, or loss of claimant’s position, might cause.
The essence of emergency arbitration relates to its procedural capacity as a temporary measure: an individual emergency arbitrator is quickly appointed, usually within hours or 1-2 days, by the arbitral institution managing the arbitration, specifically for the review and ruling of applications for interim relief. The award, typically in the form of an order or an interim award, is binding on the parties pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, which can later vary, modify, confirm, or vacate the award. This is procedurally distinct from a conventional arbitral tribunal, which is appointed through a more intricate procedure for the review of the matter for its final merits, its issuance of a final award, and its general jurisdiction over the matter.
Distinction Between Emergency Arbitrator and Regular Arbitral Tribunal
While both the emergency arbitrator and the regular arbitral tribunal operate within the arbitration framework to resolve disputes, they differ fundamentally in purpose, scope, appointment process, duration of role, and authority.
Appointment Process: An emergency arbitrator is appointed at very short notice in a situation that cannot wait. On an urgent application made by a party, the arbitral institution (such as SIAC, ICC, or LCIA) appoints the emergency arbitrator on an expedited basis, which is often within a few hours or a couple of days. The entire process is designed to be expedited: the appointment is of a sole arbitrator, without nominations by the parties and with very limited procedural formalities, so that urgent relief can be sought immediately.
A regular arbitral tribunal, on the other hand, is appointed through a much more measured and formal process. Based on the arbitration agreement, the parties may nominate one or three arbitrators, after which institutional review and appointment follow. Arbitrators are required to make very detailed disclosures, and an opportunity is provided to the parties to make objections or challenges on the basis of lack of impartiality or conflicts of interest. As a result, the appointment of a regular tribunal takes several weeks, and sometimes months, before the tribunal is finally constituted.
Duration and Role Continuity: The role of the emergency arbitrator is, by its very nature, short-term and comes to an end either when the decision on interim relief is rendered or, at the latest, with the constitution of the full tribunal-e.g., under most rules, they cannot sit on the tribunal unless parties agree otherwise. A regular arbitral tribunal persists throughout the entire duration of the proceedings until it renders the final award, having the authority to reconsider, amend, confirm, or vacate the temporary relief granted by the emergency arbitrator, if necessary.
Jurisdiction and Scope:The jurisdiction of the emergency arbitrator is very limited, with a very strict and temporary mandate; it is limited to the determination of applications for urgent interim or conservatory relief, such as asset freezes, injunctions, and preservation of evidence, which cannot await the constitution of the tribunal. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of a regular arbitral tribunal is very wide-ranging; it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the whole dispute on its merits, to make a final award, and to deal with all substantive claims, counterclaims, and issues.
Decision Nature and Review: The awards of an emergency arbitrator are generally of an interim nature or award. They are binding on an interim basis, pending the constitution of the regular arbitral tribunal, but they are interim and can later be modified, confirmed, or set aside by the regular arbitral tribunal. By contrast, awards on the merits by a regular arbitral tribunal are final and binding, except on limited grounds at the enforcement or annulment stage, and they determine the dispute conclusively.
In this respect, emergency arbitration is a quick and temporary bridge.The aim is not to make a final determination of the dispute but to provide immediate relief without becoming involved in the merits of the dispute, which are to be determined by the permanent arbitration tribunal.
The essential aim of emergency arbitration is to provide immediate interim relief in a situation where delay may cause irreparable harm or make the arbitration itself nugatory. This may include the preservation of the status quo, preventing the dissipation of assets, protecting evidence, preserving confidential information, or staying actions that may render the final award nugatory. Through emergency arbitration, parties are not compelled to hasten to national courts simply because time is of the essence.
This role has been well understood and incorporated in the rules of arbitration in major institutions around the world to ensure emergency arbitration is a staple in modern institutional arbitration. These include:
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC): Article 29 and Appendix V (introduced in 2012)—requests for urgent interim or conservatory relief that would exceed the time required to constitute a tribunal. The request would be treated as an order subject to tribunal approval.
Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC): Schedule 1 (notable 2025 updates: Protective Preliminary Orders, with limited ex parte relief). Enabling swift appointment and interim relief with binding effect.
London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA): Article 9B (since 2014/2020 rules), whereby an emergency arbitrator procedure is applicable to secure urgent relief.
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC): Schedule 4 (as updated in 2024), specifically enabling and expanding the scope of powers of emergency arbitrators.
Other leading centers, including the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), American Arbitration Association/International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR), and many more, have introduced similar specialized emergency arbitrator rules, frequently with accelerated timetables, like the appointment within 1–2 days and the rendering of decisions within 14–15 days. The concept of emergency arbitration is, therefore, closely linked with its intrinsic nature as an interim, vital remedy necessary in urgent situations of protection, contributing to party autonomy and enhancing the popular allure of institutional arbitration internationally. Other leading centers, including the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), American Arbitration Association/International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR), and many more, have introduced similar specialized emergency arbitrator rules, frequently with accelerated timetables, like the appointment within 1–2 days and the rendering of decisions within 14–15 days. The concept of emergency arbitration is, therefore, closely linked with its intrinsic nature as an interim, vital remedy necessary in urgent situations of protection, contributing to party autonomy and enhancing the popular allure of institutional arbitration internationally.
Legislative Framework Governing Arbitration in india
The main statute governing arbitration and conciliation in India is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic and international commercial arbitration and, as such, replaced the outdated Arbitration Act, 1940. It brought Indian law in tune with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, providing for arbitration as an effective, party-autonomous alternative to court litigation.
The Act is divided into four principal parts:
Part I concerns arbitrations with their seat in India, that is, domestic and international commercial arbitrations with their place of arbitration in India, in respect of certain provisions regarding the form and validity of arbitration agreements, interim measures of the court, interim measures of the arbitral tribunal, composition of arbitral tribunals, conduct of proceedings, making of awards, and enforcement/challenges to awards under Sections 7, 9, 17, and Sections 34 and 36, respectively.
Part IA, introduced through the 2019 Amendment, covers the creation of the Arbitration Council of India for the development of institutional arbitration, categorization of arbitral institutions, and accreditation of arbitrators, but is yet to be constituted as of 2026.
Part II gives effect to the Indian obligations under the New York Convention (1958) and Geneva Convention (1927) relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.
Part III is about conciliation proceedings, and Part IV includes supplementary provisions.Important amendments have successively reinforced the pro-arbitration policy:
The 2015 updates brought about time bound proceedings, judicial intervention, restrictions on automatic stay on awards, and new opportunities regarding interim relief.The 2019 reforms aimed at codifying arbitration through ACI and other reforms.
Provisions on interim measures
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) establishes a comprehensive framework for interim measures to protect parties’ rights and preserve the efficacy of the arbitral process. These provisions primarily appear in Section 9 (interim measures by courts) and Section 17 (interim measures by the arbitral tribunal), drawing from UNCITRAL Model Law principles to minimize delays and irreparable harm in commercial disputes.
Section 9 gives the courts the competence to render interim relief either before, during, or after arbitration (prior to the enforcement of the award). These orders pertain to the conservation of property, payment of interim claims, the appointment of receivers/guardians, protection of evidence, injunctions, or maintaining the status quo. Pre-arbitration applications are not uncommon for urgent cases (such as staying the dissipation of assets), but the parties are required to commence arbitration within a stipulated time frame (historically 90 days from the court order under Section 9(2)). The 2015 amendments brought Section 9(3), which limits court intervention after the formation of the tribunal unless the remedy offered by the tribunal under Section 17 is proven inefficacious, thus supporting the principle of tribunal primacy and minimizing parallel proceedings. Section 9 of the Act has the effect of empowering courts to grant interim relief either before, during, or after arbitration (but prior to the enforcement of the award). These orders relate to the conservation of property, payment of interim claims, appointment of receivers/guardians, protection of evidence, injunctions, or maintaining the status quo.Parties are required to arbitrate within a stipulated time frame (formerly 90 days from the court order issued under Section 9(2)) for pre-arbitration applications in urgent matters, such as preventing the dissipation of assets. The 2015 changes brought Section 9(3) into play, restricting court intervention before the arbitral tribunal is constituted unless Section 17’s remedy is found inefficacious.
Section 17, as emphasized by the 2015 Amendment, provides similar powers to the arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures as soon as it is constituted, with respect to the preservation of assets, securing amounts, protection of evidence, or other protective measures. More importantly, Section 17(2) provides that such orders shall have the same force as the decree of the court, within contempt of court proceedings or execution, in respect of failure to comply. The 2019 amendments have obviously restricted the powers of the tribunal within the time frame of the arbitration proceedings.
However, one of the most important weaknesses of this statutory framework is that it does not provide a specific mention of emergency arbitration—issuance of interim relief before the constitution of the tribunal, which is quite common in institutional rules of international arbitration. The statute does not provide any special provisions for the appointment of emergency arbitrators, their jurisdiction, and the enforcement of their orders/decisions. One possible explanation for this might be that this statute was enacted at a time when emergency arbitration procedures were not in practice. The 246th Report of the Law Commission in 2014 suggested this. The Srikrishna Committee Report in 2017 suggested something similar.
The legislative gap has been filled in the Indian courts by progressive judicial decisions leaning in favor of arbitration. The most notable pronouncement in the Supreme Court in the case of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. (2021 8 SCC 535), interpreting Sections 2(1)(d), defining ‘arbitral tribunal’, Section 2(1)(h), principle of party autonomy, and Section 17, regarding emergency arbitrators, asserted that awards given in emergency arbitrator proceedings in arbitrations within India are ‘interim measures’ under Section 17(1), if the parties apply institutional rules incorporating such provisions, and are therefore enforceable under Section 17(2), similar to the orders of the arbitral tribunal. The decision validated the stay order given by the emergency arbitrator of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in favor of one of the defendants in a massive transaction, advocating the principles of incorporation of institutional regulations by reference, judicial restraint, and minimal intervention. Later decisions in the Delhi High Courts in the same cases buttressed the principle of enforcement, stating that such orders are ‘binding’ before review in the tribunal, subject to restricted appeals
Absence of Express Statutory Recognition of Emergency Arbitration in India
But what actually is emergency arbitration? It’s like a ‘quick fix’ where, in a super urgent situation, you can seek immediate relief (such as freezing assets, staying a sale, or preserving evidence) from an emergency arbitrator, who is specifically appointed for this purpose. This arbitrator is usually appointed by an arbitral institution right away, even before the formation of the arbitral tribunal as a whole. It’s for those “do something now or it’s too late” situations.
This is already incorporated into the rules of many prominent international and domestic arbitral institutions, including Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and even the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) of India itself. They allow parties to seek immediate relief if the contract refers to their rules.
The rub in India? Well, the Act itself has remained silent on this entire issue – no mention, no framework whatsoever. This has been pointed out as a problem area not once, but several times.
Going all the way back to 2014, the Law Commission of India (in its comprehensive 246th Report) actually drew attention to this very issue and suggested that it be remedied.They proposed a slight modification to the definition of “arbitral tribunal” in the Act to include an emergency arbitrator if the parties agree to institutional rules that provide for it. The aim was simple: to encourage more parties to make use of reputable institutions, to give emergency awards proper legal status, and to make arbitration in India more contemporary and accessible.
Unfortunately, when Parliament finally got around to amending the Act in the years that followed (such as 2015 and so on), this particular suggestion did not find its way into the final legislation. This means that, to this day, the Act does not specifically address emergency arbitration—parties and courts have had to make do with clever arguments, the strong support of the judiciary (as in the Amazon-Future case), and the fact that if you agree to rules that provide for emergency arbitration, courts will often hold those orders to be interim measures that are enforceable nonetheless.
How Indian Courts Filled the Legislative Gap
It is also pertinent to point out the fact of the non-existence of statutory provisions, in respect of the enforcement of emergency arbitration awards in India; nevertheless, in this regard, the Indian judiciary has been paramount in filling the lacuna as far as the enforcement of emergency arbitration awards is concerned by adjudging them as interim measures to arbitration awards by resort to archival provisions of the act in a landmark manner.
The leading case that filled this lacuna is Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited (2021) involving the Supreme Court of India, which unequivocally laid down the proposition that “an award made under emergency arbitration proceedings under institutional rules” can “be made under Indian law.” The Supreme Court of India construed its own Section 17(1) of the Act—where “tribunals or arbitral institutions are empowered to grant interim awards”—to encompass emergency arbitrators as well. Further, such orders were deemed to have been made enforceable as if issued as a decree of the court, thus facilitating enforcement through the direct route of execution. This ruling also made it clear that there is no restriction under the Act on the agreement of a party regarding the adoption of measures of emergency arbitration under institutional rules.
Prior to this decision, the higher courts had set the stage by paving the road for these developments. For instance, within the decision of *Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Educomp Professional Education Pvt. Ltd.* (2016), the Delhi High Court acknowledged the effectiveness of the emergency arbitration provisions under the SIAC Rules but pursued enforcement via Section 9 interim measures. In another instance within the decision of *HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Avitel Post Studioz Ltd.* (2014), the Bombay High Court recognized the enforcement of an Emergency Award by drawing an analogy to Section 9 proceedings for persuasive measures for arbitral awards seated overseas where enforcement under Section 17 was unavailable.
Overall, the courts have taken an approach that enhances procedural fairness, minimal intervention, and conformity to international best practices for the viability of EA, despite legislative inaction. However, issues remain to be addressed regarding the enforcement of foreign awards and the need for reform that brings more certainty to the required legal intervention for the same.
Emergency Arbitration under Institutional Arbitration Rules
“emergency arbitration” – a process engaged in by arbitral centers where parties are allowed to “seek immediate interim or conservatory relief in front of a part of the arbitral tribunal before it is constituted.” This addresses “concerns striking a balance in circumstances where immediate relief is required in order to prevent irreparable damage, protect valuable rights, and maintain a status quo without having to resort to national courts.” They are included in its rules “in order to make international arbitration more attractive and more efficient by filling in a procedural gap.” “emergency arbitrators” deliver a “binding award” in a matter of days. However, it has to be emphasized again that not all rules provide for it – in fact, “according to Rules, there are no provisions in UNCITRAL” on having it; a number, like LCIA, “prefer to engage in a swift constitution of a tribunal.”
’emergency arbitration’ – this is a procedure carried out by arbitral centers and allows the party to “seek immediate interim or conservatory relief in front of a part of the arbitral tribunal before it is constituted.” This is intended to resolve “concerns relating to striking a balance in situations where immediate relief is needed in order to avoid any irreparable damage or when valuable rights are at risk and there is a need to preserve status quo without reliance on any national courts.” These are incorporated into its rules “to make arbitration more attractive and effective as it plugs a gap.” A ‘binding award’ is decided upon within a few days of emergency arbitrators. Once again, it is important to stress a point already mentioned but nevertheless vital – not all rules have this option: “according to Rules, there are no provisions in UNCITRAL” relating to this but a number of them, like LCIA, “prefer to engage in swift Constitution of a Tribunal.”
Commonly Used Institutional Arbitration Rules
The parties often select well-established arbitration centers, as opposed to ad hoc arbitration, aware of the benefits of rules that foster well-established procedures, as well as those that address urgent arbitrator orders. The most used arbitration rules in institution-based arbitration, based on worldwide caseload, surveys, and trends up to 2024–2025 statistics, are as follows:
ICC Arbitration Rules (International Chamber of Commerce, Paris) – invariably ranked as most popular in the world, having the largest caseload and highest international acceptance in complex commercial and investment disputes.
SIAC Rules (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) – Highly popular in Asia as well as the global arena; the SIAC Rules 2025 include updates to the rules governing Emergency Arbitrator proceedings.
LCIA Rules (London Court of International Arbitration) – The leading choice in English law-governed contracts, especially in higher value claims, with significant growth in caseload (e.g., 318 arbitrations in 2024). HKIAC Rules (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) – Commonly applied in Asia-Pacific jurisdictions; demonstrating a record high in new cases in 2024: 352.
CIETAC Rules (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) – Dominant in China, in the top worldwide (top 5 preferred), in particular regions they cover the bulk of cases because of sheer numbers.
Other notable rules:
SCC – Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Rules
DIAC – Dubai International Arbitration Center Rules
Emerging updates: AIAC Rules 2026 or KCAB International Arbitration Rules 2026
These institutions are pre-eminent arbitral centers globally as a result of the demonstrated track records, the perception of neutrality, and the level of support.
Why Parties Opt for Institutional Arbitration Instead of Ad Hoc arbitration
In recent times, arbitration institutions are increasingly preferred over ad hoc arbitration by many arbitration parties or entities due to the benefits they offer in an arbitration process over ad hoc arbitration, as the risks in arbitration are limited in arbitration institutions as compared to ad hoc arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration has the drawback of a variety of risks in the arbitration process, although it may be more economical or cost-effective in comparison to arbitration institutions as it involves a lesser or zero upfront fee to the
Key reasons why a party might prefer institutional arbitration include:
Administrative Support and Oversight – These institutions take care of logistical support for arbitrators to be appointed in case of non-agreement by parties, collection of arbitration fees, management of cases, as well as procedural deadlines. This eliminates the risks of delays or deadlocks in the process due to lack of support.
Established Procedural Framework – Rules provide detailed and pre-drafted standards on various issues such as evidence, hearings, timelines, and interim orders (including the award of interim orders by the Emergency Arbitrator). Such an advantage is lacking under ad hoc rules for which the parties need to negotiate the applicable rules or fall on the “national laws/UNCITRAL” default option.
Checks and balances for Legitimacy– Institutions include supervision such as scrutiny of the award by such institutions as ICC Court, resulting in enhanced quality and enforceability and reduced challenges to an award.
Expertise in Arbitrator Selection — In case of a need, institutions select an expert, a neutral, from a list, avoiding any kind of prejudice or lack of qualification that an ad hoc institution might face.
Efficiency and Speed – With well-structured timelines in place, along with emergency proceedings and case management systems, disputes are quickly resolved – particularly in emergency or urgent disputes. In fact, SIAC and ICC reporting has indicated reduced time spent in resolving disputes compared to ad hoc cases.
Enhanced Enforceability and Credibility – An arbitral award made under a reputable set of rules has a higher chance of enforcement under the New York Convention as the judiciary recognizes the procedure as valid.
Suitability for Complex Cases – In complex cases such as multi-party claims or international disputes, the system helps to prevent chaos; ad hoc is more appropriate for less complex claims that involve trusting parties who will work together.
As a summary statement of this comparison of the two types of arbitration processes: as a desirable choice for its inherent flexibility as a non-routine or “ad hoc” arbitration procedure with its attendant cost benefits in lower value or uncomplicated matters to undergo arbitration as opposed to litigation processes in courts of common-law jurisdictions, institutional arbitration with its process limitations, professional management support system, and global recognition as an acceptable
The Amazon-Future Dispute: A Turning Point
Background of the Amazon-Future dispute
The Amazon-Future Dispute has been recognized as a bench marker in Indian arbitration law, especially in asserting/enforcing Emergency Orders in India-Seat Arbitral Proceedings. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd & Ors., delivered in 2021, has indeed been a watershed moment in recognizing/issuing/enforcing Emergency Orders in India-Seat Arbitral Proceedings conducted in accordance with Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (an Amazon company), an investment holding company of Amazon, made an investment of about $200 million in 2019 to subscribe to a 49% equity share in Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCPL), an entity owned by the promoters of FRL. FRL operates one of the largest retail chains in India and was originally an enterprise of the Biyani family. There were three significant agreements:
A Shareholders Agreement dated August 12, 2019. Amazon, FCPL, and promoters (i.e., the Biyani family).
Accordingly, the business arrangement was framed to conform to the foreign direct investment rules set by the Indian government for FDI in multi-brand trading industries. In this regard, Amazon’s entry was to offer the necessary strategic advantages through options to be acquired by FRL without controlling the same through rights to refuse alternative offers, agreeing to restrictive arrangements to prevent the sale of FRL’s retail business to restricted entities, such as competitors of Amazon – Reliance Retail.
The agreement has been cleared by the Competition Commission of India in 2019. Concerns were raised in recent times over non-disclosure of pertinent information regarding the rights of Amazon.
The Dispute Triggering Emergency Arbitration
The dispute began in 2020, and it started on account of a USD 3.4 billion asset-sale agreement by Future Group under the leadership of Kishore Biyani with Reliance Retail Ventures Limited, belonging to businessman Mukesh Ambani and his company Reliance Industries Limited. The asset-sale agreement included a scheme of arrangement and amalgamation in terms of a merger of Future Retail with Reliance Retail.
Amazon argued that this transaction breached substantive requirements of the 2019 agreements in regard to:
The Non-compete and Restricted Entities clauses of the SHA which precluded FRL from assigning its assets to its competitors, as Reliance is a Restricted Entity. Rights of first refusal that Amazon established, and other protective covenants that required consent and/or preference to Amazon in any transfer of assets.
The argument that they were sustaining irremediable injury as a direct consequence of the impending Reliance deal (which had threatened to erode away their investment value in some way) invited the invocation of the arbitration clause in the agreements between them. The arbitration clause agreed upon in the agreements was in accordance with the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to be held in Singapore.
In October 2020, Amazon applied to institute emergency arbitration in accordance with SIAC Rule 30 along with Schedule 1 regarding ‘Emergency Arbitrator.’ The emergency arbitrator was appointed speedily, and on October 25, 2020, an interim order was issued by the emergency arbitrator (commonly known as an ‘award of the emergency arbitrator’) to restrain Future groups of companies in their proceeding with the proposed transaction with Reliance until the case was decided by a fuller arbitral tribunal.
This order effectively Blocked/Stopped the proposed deal between Reliance and Future. This led to protracted proceedings and litigation before various Indian courts with arguments on jurisdiction and enforceability of emergency arbitrators’ orders. This was accompanied by various other proceedings against Future Group, including suspension of CCI order passed in 2019 on alleged non-disclosure violations in 2021. This escalated into a multi-jurisdiction dispute involving contempt proceedings, insolvency proceedings against Future Group, and liquidation of Future Retail.It was in this case that the relationship between contractual rights, FDI compliant rights, and relief mechanisms was brought to light in an eventual Supreme Court ruling that reinforced the enforcement of the emergency order with the approval of Sections 17(1) and 17(2) of the FAA.
Emergency Arbitrator’s Order in the Amazon-Future Case
It may be noted that the Amazon Future arbitration case marked a significant turning point in the history of Indian arbitration law as the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC versus Future Retail Limited & Ors., delivered in January 2021, upheld the validity of the emergency award rendered by the emergency arbiter in the case where the arbitral tribunal had seated itself in India and had adopted the rules framed by the Singapore International Arbitration
The emergency arbitrator, appointed under rule 30 along with schedule 1 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules, passed an interim order award in favor of Amazon on October 25, 2020. The major order passed by this award in favor of Amazon is: inhibition order that restrained Future Retail Limited (FRL), Future Coupons Pvt. Limited (FCPL), along with other promoter groups
Proceeding with/consummation of the proposed USD 3.4 billion deal of selling/transferring FRL retail businesses to Reliance Retail Venture Limited and/or its restricted entities. Taking any actions that would constitute a violation of the covenants contained in the 2019 Shareholders Agreement. These covenants include restrictions on the transfer of assets to competing parties, non-compete restrictions, as well as Amazon’s right of refusal.
The order was to maintain the status quo and avoid irreparable injury to the investment made by Amazon by ceasing to make or attempt actions that would render meaningless the contractual protections accorded to Amazon pending the constitution and determination by the full arbitral tribunal. This shall be binding upon the parties and an interim measure; hence, the emergency arbitrator gave a reasoned ground for the said relief upon urgency, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and possible irreparable injury.
This kind of relief-an injunction, in effect-is the norm in emergency arbitration, where protection against a particular threat to a party’s rights cannot wait until a regular tribunal is constituted.
Why the Order Was Significant
The order made by the emergency arbitrator was groundbreaking in various ways because this effectively put on hold a high-profile multi-billion-dollar corporate deal, and this is indicative of the power and influence emergency arbitration is capable of.
It resulted in considerable litigation in Indian courts, where a challenge was made to the validity and enforceability of the order by the Future Group, which argued that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, did not provide a provision or scope for emergency arbitration or the enforcement of orders.
Thus, the affirmation of the Supreme Court considered the emergency arbitrator interim award as if it were an order made under Section 17(1) of the Act (the interim measures ordered by the Tribunal), which enabled the award to be enforced like any other court decree via Section 17(2). This interpretation filled an important legislative gap in the enforcement regime.
It enhanced confidence in emergency arbitration options, especially where the seat is in another jurisdiction such as the SIAC rules, in the case of India seated arbitral disputes.
The overall impact extended beyond that case, into subsequent ones, emphasizing the urgency of amending statutes (although none have been enacted up to 2026), as well as demonstrating the consequences of failure to comply with emergency proceedings, which may result in contempt.
Therefore, the order did not only help Amazon sustain its position regarding the contract in the short term but has also established an important precedent that enhances the efficacy and appeal of Emergency Arbitrators in India by reducing the need for judicial intervention for interim reliefs that can otherwise delay the process further
Judicial Recognition of Emergency Arbitration in India
Supreme Court’s Approach in Amazon-Future
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on August 6, 2021, in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4492–4497 of 2021), wherein for the first time, the validity and enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders in India-seated arbitrations were unequivocally recognized and upheld. As there are no express provisions for emergency arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this judgment interpretively filled the legislative vacuum by giving an expansive interpretation to existing sections so as to make them align with party autonomy, institutional rules, and international best practices.
The Court recognized emergency arbitrator orders in the following significant ways:
· “Drawing Analogy Between Emergency Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 17(1) of the Act”: In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the “emergency arbitrator appointed under the institution’s own rules can certainly be termed an ‘arbitral tribunal’ for the purpose of considering the interim relief applications,” by virtue of the “promise of interim relief under Section 17(1)” ¡ знак «x» ». In fact, “an award dealing with interim relief pleadings can be valid since the ‘tribunal’s power under Section 17(1)’ empowers the arbitral tribunal to ‘grant interim measures for orders at any time during the arbitral proceeding before the final award.'” No provision under the “Arbitration Act can be found that inhibits the parties from agreeing on institution rules that permit an award to be issued by an ’emergency arbitrator,’ thereby automatically agreeing on the ‘Emergency Arbitrator Rules,’ thereby by the promise of interim orders under Section 17(1) being vested in the ‘Emergency Arbitrator.’
Direct Enforceability as a Court Decree Under Section 17(2): The Court also held that such emergency measures would be directly enforceable through a decree issued by it under Section 17 (2), which treats orders made by a tribunal in emergency situations under Section 17(1) as “equivalent” to a court decree subject to similar conditions of enforcement, including contempt in the event of a failure to comply with them. This facilitates a direct route of enforcement through a court decree without the parties needing to seek fresh relief through court recourse to parallel relief under Section 9 itself. The ruling clarified enforcement requests made pursuant to Section 17(2) are valid in emergency awards of India-Seated Arbitrals.
Upholding the party autonomy principle with limited court intervention: Drawing from the recent changes to the Act through the 2015 Amendments to the Act by strengthening the pro-arbitration principles incorporated in the Act, the Court held that it upheld the principle of respect for the choice of the parties in the selection of the rules applicable to the arbitral procedure. The Court rejected the argument that emergency arbitration is “alien to the Act” since the failure to specifically refer to emergency procedures in the Act could not be taken to indicate exclusion.
· Distinguishing between India-Seated and Foreign-Seated Arbitrations: The Court sought to constrain the ruling to ‘India-Seated’ arbitrations, as in this case, as the seat of arbitration was fixed as New Delhi, despite the SIAC administration, rather than foreign-seated, as in the case of ‘emergency awards’ that would be addressed under Section 9 or the Convention, without any reliance on Section 17.
No Appeal Under Section 37: The Court has held that orders passed pursuant to Section 17(2) for the enforcement of emergency arbitrator orders are not appealable by an action initiated under Section 37 of the Act.
Such a progressive approach filled the legislative void through judicial interpretation to bolster the confidence in Indian arbitration and bring India in line with other jurisdictions that have statutorily provided for the recognizability of emergency arbitration. Such a move would form the basis for the future trajectory of such decisions in India to further facilitate the use of emergency procedures through institutional options while strengthening the case for legislative intervention to achieve the same.
Interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in Relation to Emergency Arbitration
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not specifically provide for Emergency Arbitration (EA), but Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court in the Amazon v. Future case, have construed it to permit the enforcement of EA orders. Although not referred to in the Act, awards on EA are generally enforceable as interim awards under Section 17, if the arbitration agreement permits institutional rules that provide for EA, such as those of the SIAC.Indian courts, led by the Supreme Court, have attempted to fill this void by way of purposive, harmonious, and pro-arbitration interpretation of significant provisions of arbitration law, in particular Section 17 on interim orders by the arbitral tribunal and allied provisions. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors., which came in 2021, may illustrate this approach in considerable detail.
Main Interpretations by the Supreme Court in Amazon-Future Case
The Supreme Court resorted to a ‘progressive’ interpretation in order to uphold emergency arbitration in the following judgment made on Aug 6, 2021:
Widened and Liberal Understanding of ‘Arbitral Tribunal’ under Section 17(1)
The arbitral tribunal has power to order interim measures (injunctive relief, measures of conservation of assets or maintaining status quo) in any award prior to a final one through Section 17 (1). The Court has given an expansive definition of what constitutes “arbitral tribunal,” which includes an emergency arbitrator appointed in accordance with the rules selected by parties to hold jurisdiction.
Thus, where parties agree in their arbitration rules to adopt rules dealing with emergency arbitration (so far as applicable to present case – SIAC rules), they accord authority to the emergency arbitrator in their position as arbitral tribunal. The fact that no such mechanisms are prohibited by the Act means that they are permissible, to respect party autonomy-a core principle strengthened by the 2015 amendments to the Act.
Harmonious Construction of Sections 17(1) and 17(2):
Section 17(2) treats orders under Section 17(1) on par with court orders, thus making them directly enforceable (including contempt proceedings). The Court adopted a purposive approach: an order by an emergency arbitrator is an interim measure under Section 17(1), thus it is enforceable as a court decree under Section 17(2). This removes the possibility of redundancy and inefficiency-arising out of the need to seek relief simultaneously in courts under Section 9 (court-ordered interim relief) for enforcement in arbitrations conducted in India.
Pro-Arbitration Stance Highlighted in the Amazon-Future
Thus, the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in the dispute of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors. (passed on the 6th of August 2021) is one such instance of how India is encouraging arbitration by recognizing potential loopholes in its pro-arbitration arbitration law as opportunities for innovation in adjudicating the core features of arbitration, namely autonomy of parties, judicial restraint, efficiency, and adherence to international best practices; in this instance, despite the absence of any specific provision on these aspects in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.
Elements that Demonstrate the Pro-Arbitration Stance
Respect for Party Autonomy:
“where the parties had opted for arbitration in accordance with express rules of arbitration containing provisions for emergency arbitration, Indian law must respect such election of the parties. It also held that there is nothing in the Act to prohibit such provisions in arbitration and to apply strict literal interpretation of the Act would render nugatory the freedom of the parties to determine their dispute resolution process.”
Minimal Judicial Intervention and Efficiency:
This way, emergency arbitrator orders were treated as interim measures within Section 17(1), and immediate enforceability as final court decrees within Section 17(2). This way, emergency relief was granted without other requests to the courts within Section 9. This is yet another move away from delay, courts, and inconsistency—characteristics that make this model pro-arbitration and heavily favor arbitration as an effective mode of dispute resolution.
Limiting Appeals and Enhancing Finality:
The ruling further explained that for an emergency arbitrator award, there cannot be any appeal under Section 37 against an enforcement order made under Section 17(2) to exclude the inducement of dilatory tactics and encourage expediency. This instills much-needed confidence in the finality of arbitration and discourages parties from attempting to frustrate arbitral processes before Courts.
Delhi High Court rulings on emergency arbitration
Delhi High Court: Delhi High Court has been instrumental in the enforcement of emergency orders in arbitral awards, especially in high-profile cases.
Delhi High Court’s Involvement in the Implementation of Emergency Arbitration Orders
Notably, in the Amazon-Future dispute, the Delhi High Court (in an order dated March 18, 2021, in O.M.P.(ENF)(COMM)17/2021) enforced an interim order of an emergency arbitrator of the SIAC by way of an enforcement order in pursuance of Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It restrained Future Retail from going ahead with the Reliance deal and said that the order of the emergency arbitrator was to be regarded as enforceable and-binding like an order of an arbitration tribunal. There was no validity to Amazon’s objections in this regard either, it having argued that provisions of emergency were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
In the line of previous judgments, such as Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Educomp Professional Education Pvt. Ltd. 2016, the Delhi High Court has enforced foreign-seated emergency awards but through the route of Section 9 and not by the direct applicability of Section 17, thus underlining jurisdictional limitations for non-India seated arbitrations.
Consistency with the Approach of the Supreme Court
The pro-active enforcement by the Delhi High Court in Amazon-Future thus tracked the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2021 confirming the emergency arbitrator’s order as an order falling under Section 17(1) as directly enforceable under Section 17(2). Party autonomy, purposive interpretation of the Act, and limited intervention were common factors weighing decisively with both Courts. The Supreme Court confirmed the initial High Court order granting enforcement, further emphasizing that courts would continue to grant favorable treatment to emergency arbitration in India-seated cases.
This is seen from various rulings passed by Delhi High Courts across various matters, which demonstrates an increased trend towards arbitration across the Indian judiciary as an efficient resolution mechanism, highlighting efficiency and reducing non-compliance, making Indian arbitration more attractive as an option in accordance with post-2015 amendments to its arbitration regulations and rules.
In conclusion, it can be asserted that Delhi High Court emergency arbitration jurisprudence has strengthened enforceability in such cases by bridging legislative gaps through a progressive interpretation approach.
Enforceability of Emergency Arbitrator Orders in India
In India, the enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders is principally governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended), with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited, (2021) holding that, for India-seated arbitrations, an emergency arbitrator constitutes an “arbitral tribunal” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d). Subsequently, its orders granting interim measures under institutional rules are considered enforceable as interim awards within the meaning of Section 17(1) and Section 17(2), thereby granting the aggrieved party rights of court enforcement as akin to a decree and upon non-compliance attracting contempt proceedings. These are considered to be interim measures as the power to make such awards rests with the arbitral tribunal by virtue of its authority granted through Section 17, which allows it to make orders to preserve the status quo or the subject matter of dispute by way of a protective measure. The mechanism to enforce an arbitration order would require making an application to the competent court—normally the principal civil court of original competency or the High Court—under Section 17(2) to carry out enforcement. In contrast, approaches to enforcement of foreign-seated Award remain non-existent by direct enforcement through S.17, with the Courts making use of parallel relief under S.9 through the emergency process, where the Award acts as persuasive authority—although amendments are now also contemplated with the Draft Bill 2024, the foundation of such a state of affairs fundamentally remains locked into the Amazon ruling.
These are considered to be interim measures as the power to make such awards rests with the arbitral tribunal by virtue of its authority granted through Section 17, which allows it to make orders to preserve the status quo or the subject matter of dispute by way of a protective measure. The mechanism to enforce an arbitration order would require making an application to the competent court—normally the principal civil court of original competency or the High Court—under Section 17(2) to carry out enforcement. In contrast, approaches to enforcement of foreign-seated Award remain non-existent by direct enforcement through S.17, with the Courts making use of parallel relief under S.9 through the emergency process, where the Award acts as persuasive authority—although amendments are now also contemplated with the Draft Bill 2024, the foundation of such a state of affairs fundamentally remains locked into the Amazon ruling.
Practical Challenges after Amazon-Future and Delhi HC Rulings
Absence of express statutory recognition
However, notwithstanding the clear ruling by the Supreme Court in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited (2021) and Delhi High Court litigant-friendly decisions accepting the efficacy and enforcement of emergency arbitrator interim relief as ‘interim measures’ under Section 17 for India-seated arbitral tribunals, some difficulties exist arising due to the lack of specific provisions regarding emergency arbitrators and their enforcement due to the lack of specific provisions for emergency arbitrators and their enforcement as proposed by the 1996 ‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act,’ with some provisions being proposed by the 246th ‘Law Commission Report’ (2014) and also by the ‘Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee Report’ (2017) for incorporating the concept of emergency arbitrators, with the ‘Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024,’ containing provisions for granting emergency relief by way of Section 9A, yet to be enacted as of 2025. The reliance on government intervention can lead to divergent findings, as was seen in Raffles v. Educomp in 2016, with foreign-seated awards not being considered sufficiently to warrant Section 2 assistance, while requiring new Section 9 provisions, which could be extremely counter-productive to the success of the process, leading to non-compliance with orders, which had lost their potency, e.g., 90-day limitation in Section 9(2), thereby negating any sense of urgency to comply, as has been shown in the Amazon-Future saga, with numerous disputes and asset transfers.
The process itself has several issues, e.g., it can be immensely costly, with numerous delays due to enormous backlog, thereby making it more of an elitist tool only available to large corporations, while in relation to foreign-seated awards, they cannot be enforced, being only relevant in Section 9, thereby acting as persuasive factors, which could easily be negated, leading to non-compliance, with orders no longer being within potency, e.g., 90-day limitation in Section 9(2).
Conflict between party autonomy and court intervention
In Indian arbitration law, the conflict of independence of the parties and intervention of courts stems from one of its most important elements that, in accordance with Indian arbitration law, it gives parties independence in shaping their arbitration process, including providing arbitration in emergency matters, as upheld in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited, 2021, as per sections 2(6), 2(8), and 19(2) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. and yet for the need to ensure that autonomy is maintained but judicial overreach is minimized. Such autonomy, however, squarely conflicts with the requirement of court powers under Section 17(2) for enforcement, especially since the Act does not accord explicit statutory recognition to emergency arbitrators, with parties being left to rely on judicial interpretation, which invites undue intervention in such cases where courts revisit merits or order parallel relief under Section 9, thereby denting the efficiency and finality of the arbitral process. The parallel proceedings risk is more acute in this context, especially in the case of foreign seated arbitrations where emergency orders are not directly enforceable.
Therefore, prompting parties to lodge concurrent Section 9 applications with a view to securing incidental relief, which can lead to multiple litigation, conflicting awards, further expenses, and delays–giving less effect to the expediency of emergency provisions, which has been emphasized in post-Amazon studies, as well as in proposals to introduce Section 9A, as can be deduced in the Draft Arbitration Bill 2024.
Awareness and accessibility issues
Essentially, in the case of emergency arbitration in India in relation to the ruling in the case of Amazon v. Future Retail in 2021, it has to be realized that an important aspect is “guassance” – unawareness, particularly for SMEs and party participants in general, due to the fact that it is an option grounded in “institutional rules” of regional and international institutions such as SIAC or ICC and is not promoted at home, and as such, even attempts by home-grown institutions such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and even Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to offer reduced fees have not garnered enough traction on account of it being an “esoteric” service. The cost implications add to the accessibility barriers as the institutional fees to seek foreign forums, which range to high amounts to seek urgent arbitrations, only favor corporate giants, and the additional burden of enforcement through courts to seek relief through Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek legal fees and processing delays only acts as a counterproductive measure to seek urgent relief from the process itself. The institutional barriers remain on account of a lack of express recognition under Indian law, despite a series of proposals and suggestions from the Law Commission since 2014, and became a barrier to enforcement, relying on under-developed local arbitration institutions lacking effective urgent mechanisms, and would act as a barrier towards foreign arbitrations where direct enforceability is not available, to only act as an elitist measure favoring only corporate giants over a higher degree of accessibility
Comparative Perspective on Emergency Arbitration
From a comparative law perspective, the institutionality of Emergency Arbitration is present and well-established, especially in jurisdictions where the law is enacted and where “arbitral tribunal” is specifically defined under the “International Arbitration Act” to include “emergency arbitrators” themselves, which orders issued therefore can be enforced by operation of law without the necessity to approach a local enforcement authority to obtain compliance, as mandated under institutionally developed rules under the “SIAC.” The “Arbitration Ordinance” enacted under the law in “Hong Kong” specifically provides express statutory recognition to Emergency Arbitration and enables the direct enforceability of orders issued by Emergency Arbitrators to have full force and effect as if issued “domestically” or “internationally.” In “UK,” although specific recognition is missing from “S 44” to Emergency Arbitrators, orders issued can be enforced under institutionally developed rules and “LCIA” itself”although it is more linked to the judges’ interpretation than the law. The US has an ambivalent law on the subject at both federal and state levels, with reference to the AAA/ICD Rules facilitating its application. However, its implementation is subject to court ratification as preliminary injunctions under the FAA, so it is not exempt from the possibility of delays. France, with its widespread application of ICC arbitration, is favorable to the application of EAA under its institutional laws rather than its legal rules, underlining the primacy of autonomy, with assistance from courts not only in enforcement actions under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the clarity of the rules, Singapore and Hong Kong are far more advanced in the degree of express laws compared to the others, which are more case-centric and open to interpretation, such as the laws in India, the UK, US, and France. In the case of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in India, it is conspicuous by its silence in the Amazon case of Future (2021). creating enforcement uncertainties.” Thus, the above-mentioned insights shed a light upon the Indian scenario by evaluating it to be progressive through the route of case law, yet wanting in legislative content, accordingly bringing amendments like the proposed Section 9A to the Draft Bill 2024 to conform to international standards, to reduce parallel proceedings, and to be easily accessible by the arbitration system globally.
Need for Legislative Clarity on Emergency Arbitration
The necessity of legislative clarity on emergency arbitration in India follows the necessity of express statutory recognition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to reinforce judicial precedents, such as the recent Supreme Court judgment of Amazon v. Future Retail, which, although progressive in intent and tone, falls short on various counts in terms of enforceability, especially for foreign-seated arbitrations where the emergency orders would not have direct binding force and parallel interventions under Section 9 are required. Explicit provisions, such as the earlier draft bills proposing the insertion of Section 9A, would crystallize the status of an emergency arbitrator as forming part of the “arbitral tribunal” under Section 2(1)(d) and consequently vesting the former with the authority and power to issue interim measures that are perforce enforceable, resulting in reduced litigation risks and a uniform application across courts. The advantages that may arise out of such certainty and predictability include speedy dispute resolution, absence of delay caused by appellate matters or non-compliance, greater satisfaction among both parties regarding swift relief options, and cost reduction on account of avoiding duplication of procedure to promote a more efficient arbitral process that is in sync with international best practices like those prevailing in Singapore or Hong Kong. This legislative move assumes tremendous significance for a country like India in its bid to develop itself as an arbitration hub at a global scale, as envisioned recently under different platforms by the Indian government, such as those developed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee Report (2017), to attract more investment as an arbitration hub or via MCIA/DIAM following other prominent centers around the globe like Singapore or London for business to flourish.
Conclusion
In summary, the position of emergency arbitration in India has been filled with significant judicial developments since the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited, in which it was held that the awards of an emergency arbitrator in arbitrations seated in India are enforceable as interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and this position has been supported by the Delhi High Court in a number of cases.. These developments have proved useful in giving teeth to the mechanism of urgent interim relief, based on party autonomy and institutional rules such as those of SIAC. Nevertheless, the challenges that have persisted in this mechanism, such as the lack of statutory recognition, the reliance on judicial interpretation that is liable to inconsistencies, difficulties of enforcement, especially in foreign-seated arbitrations that require parallel Section 9 applications, risks of parallel proceedings, high costs, lack of accessibility for SMEs, and overall uncertainty, continue to limit its potential and make it somewhat elitist.Although the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, had proposed certain measures under Section 9A to finally recognize the concept of emergency arbitration and make it more enforceable, such proposed amendments were still pending as of the early year of 2026 and were in dire need of immediate legislative intervention in order to bring about certainty and predictability in the field of arbitration. Such proposed amendments will help the orders of the emergency arbitrator play a crucial role in making the arbitration regime of India a truly arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
About Author
Yash Sharma is a student at IMS Law College in his third year of the B.A. LL.B. program. He is quite enthusiastic about the field of law with regard to corporations. He is also undertaking the Company Secretary (CS) Executive level course. He is the author of two researched and published articles. Both the articles are centered on global migration and asylum laws and issues of custodial deaths in the land of India. He has also managed to land an internship in legal research with Legalis IP (or alternatively the Centre for the Development of Intellectual Property and Research-CDIPR), a job spanning 6 months in the spring. He is quite enthusiastic about the blend of legal studies with practical experiences in the field of corporations.
Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ)
1) What is emergency arbitration?
Emergency arbitration is an evidentiary support system that allows one party to seek immediate temporary (interim) procedural remedies (in the form of interim or preliminary injunctions, freezers/orders for the conservation of assets, or status quo orders), for example, from a specially designated emergency arbitral body. The emergency arbitration procedure can extend immediate protection or relief for temporary and immediate basis within days or even weeks of initial dispute initiation. Emergency arbitration supplies urgent or instant support.
2) Is emergency arbitration recognised in India?
Yes, emergency arbitration is recognised in India through judicial interpretation rather than express statutory provisions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited, (2021) held that, for India-seated arbitrations, an emergency arbitrator qualifies as an “arbitral tribunal” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and, therefore permitted emergency arbitrator orders to be treated as interim measures under Section 17. This position has been further enforced in practice through subsequent Delhi High Court rulings.
3) What was the significance of the Amazon-Future case?
The Amazon v. Future Retail case (2021) was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India. It marked the first time the apex court explicitly upheld the validity and enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders in India-seated arbitrations, treating them as enforceable interim awards under Section 17(2) of the Act. The ruling affirmed party autonomy, recognised emergency arbitrators under institutional rules, and resolved long-standing uncertainty, paving the way for greater use of this mechanism in India and aligning it more closely with global arbitration standards.
4) Can emergency arbitrator orders be enforced in India?
Yes, as in the case of India-seated arbitration, the orders passed by the emergency arbitrators are enforceable in the same way as court judgments under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, failing which contempt action may be initiated. This has been preceded by judgments in the Amazon v. Future precedent case. However, while in the case of India-seated disputes it is directly enforceable under Section 17, in the case of foreign-seated disputes, arguments in support of emergency orders may also have to be presented before Indian courts under Section 9.