“The Indian judiciary has laid down various legal frameworks, which narrow the front through which Indian courts can interfere in arbitral practices an arbitration regime that is afflicted with numerous issues consisting of those of high costs and delays. To complement that, the Government has also been cognizant of the critical requirement to limit judicial scrutiny, both during the pendency of an arbitration, and after an award is made. To address these challenges, the Law Commission came up with its 246th Report on proposed amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Government passed The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, which is most certainly a welcome change and has been addressed for giving the so much required impulse to the development of the Indian arbitration rule.” “This subject came originally from uncertainty over the powers of courts to issue interim methods in Sec. 9 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or say, broadly the applicability of Part I of the Act to International Commercial Arbitration. This raises the question as to what powers were available if the arbitration takes place outside India. For example, if arbitration takes place in Hong Kong but the relevant assets are in India, can Indian courts prevent the dissipation of the assets before the award?
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.