Armed with a ‘pro-arbitration’ outlook, the judicial pronouncements by Courts in India over the last decade evidence a clear endorsement of the principle of party autonomy in arbitration and brings Indian arbitration jurisprudence in line with other ‘arbitration-friendly’ jurisdictions. An aspect of this is reflected in the recent Supreme Court ruling in PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd.., wherein the Court was, inter alia, considering whether a party could approach the Indian courts for appropriate provisional reliefs (under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996) in respect of arbitrations seated outside India or in pursuance of an award rendered in such foreign-seated arbitrations. Answering this query in the affirmative, the Apex Court has brought much-needed clarity in an otherwise dialectical sphere of jurisprudence. Through this article, we expound the irresolute history of the provision’s applicability to foreign-seated arbitrations, analyse like-principles adopted in transnational litigation, and attempt to identify a trend towards legal certainty while examining the latest expression on this subject by the Calcutta High Court in Medima LLC v. Balasore Alloys Limited.
