DR.

RAMMANOHARLOHIYANATIONALLAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

2015-16

ALTERNATEDISPUTERESOLUTION

FinalDraft

“POWEROFNATIONALCOURTSANDARBITRALTRIBUNALTOGRANT
INTERIM MEASURES”

SUBMITTEDTO: SUBMITTEDBY:

MR.PRASENJITKUNDU ADITIMANGAL

ASSISTANTPROFESSOR(LAW) ROLLNO.11
 SEMESTERVI

TABLEOFCONTENTS

TableofContents 2

InterimMeasuresbyNationalCourts 5

PositionundertheIndianLaw 7

InterimMeasuresbyArbitralTribunal 8

PositionundertheIndianLaw 9

DistinctionbetweenPowersunderSection9andSection17 10

PositionunderUNCITRALModelLaw 11

Conclusion 14

Bibliography 15
 INTRODUCTION

Arbitrationisnowrecognizedasaprincipalprocessofresolvingdisputesbetween

individuals,corporationsandstatesinalmosteveryaspectofcommerce,investment

andinternationaltrade.Ithasbecomeanefficientmechanismthroughwhichabinding

decisionoveradisputemaybeobtainedwithoutrecoursetoacourtoflaw. 1Factors

likespeedofresolution,lowercosts,privacy,andneutralityofforumareofteninvoked

whendescribingitsadvantagesoverlitigationinnationalcourts.2Oneadditionaland

criticalreasonforinternationalarbitration’scontinuingpopularityisthatenforcing

foreignarbitralawardsisconsiderablyeasierthanenforcingforeignjudgmentsinmost

nations.ThisislargelybecauseoftheConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcement

ofForeignArbitralAwards(“New YorkConvention”),whichprovidesthatsignatory

nationsmustrecognizearbitralawardsissuedinforeignsignatorynations,subjectto

severalverynarrowexceptions.

Asthepopularityofinternationalarbitrationhasgrown,sohaverequestsforinterim

reliefinarbitralproceedings.3Interimreliefoccasionalyreferedtoas“provisional”or

“conservatory”reliefprotectsaparty’srightspendingthefinalresolutionofthedispute.

Interimreliefiscriticalinanyformofdisputeresolution.Partiesmusthavetheoptionto

seekinterim measures,suchaspreliminaryinjunctionsandatachments,wheretheir

adversariesthreatentotakeactionthatcannotbeundonebyafter-thefactdamages.

1N.Blackabyetal.,RedfernandHunteronInternationalArbitration(5thedn,2009OUP)2
2StephenM.Ferguson,InterimMeasuresofProtectioninInternationalCommercialArbitration:Problems,
ProposedSolutions,andAnticipatedResults,12CURRENTS:INT’LTRADEL.J.55,55-57(2003).
3RaymondJ.Werbicki,ArbitralInterimMeasures:FactorFiction?,57DISP.RESOL.J.62,64(Jan.2003)
Partiesininternationalarbitrationsarenoexception.4

Inthecourseoftheresolutionofcommercialdisputeswhetherbythecourtorinan

arbitraltribunal,itisalwaysnecessarytoensurethatthepropertyindisputeisnot

alowedtobewastedordepletedtothedetrimentofeitherparty.Theneedforan

interimmeasuremayarisebecauseitmaybetoolateifthetribunalhastowaituntilan

awardismadetoresolvethedispositionoftheproperty.Apartfromthehardshipwhich

suchdelaymaycreate,thevalueoftheawardmaygreatlyreduce.Suchinterim

measureofpreservationmaybeappliedtoaffectthescaleofperishablegoodsto

preventthemfromperishing.Mostcountrieshaveprovisionsintheirlawforthemaking

ofinterimordersfortheprotectionofpropertyindisputeinarbitration.

Atthispoint,nearlyalinternationalarbitrationrulesprovideforsomeformofinterim

relief.However,therearesignificantvariationsinwhenapartymayseekinterimrelief,

theamountoftimeitwiltakeanapplicanttoobtainthatrelief,thetypesofrelief

available,andthestandardsforobtainingthatrelief.Additionaly,althoughUNCITRAL

favorsexparteapplicationsforinterimrelief,otherinstitutionsdonot.Asanalternative

toseekinginterimreliefthrougharbitration,apartymightalsoapplytoanationalcourt,

wherepermitedtodosoundertheapplicablelawandRules.Indeed,nationalcourtsare

generalyinasuperiorpositiontoprovideinterimrelief.

Theneedtobringininterimmeasuresofprotectionintherealmofarbitrationwasto

protecttherightsofthepartiesduringthependencyofthedisputes.Keepingthis

objective,theModelLawcontainsprovisionsforinterimmeasurestobegrantedbythe

4
PeterJ.W.SherwinandDouglasC.Rennie,“Interim ReliefunderInternationalArbitrationRulesand
Guidelines:AComparativeAnalysis”,TheAmericanReviewofInternationalArbitration(ARIA),v20/no3, 317-366.
CourtsandArbitralTribunal.In2006,theModellawhasbeenfurtheramendedandnew

chapterIVAwasintroducedtohaveamorecomprehensivelegalregimedealingwith

interimmeasuresinsupportofarbitration.

Onsimilarlines,Section9andSection17oftheActalsoprovidesforinterimmeasures

ofprotectionfortheparties.TheArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996(“theAct”)was

enactedseekingtoconsolidateandcreateauniform codeinlinewiththeUNCITRAL

ModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration,1985(“ModelLaw”).Section9of

theActalowspartiestoseekinterim relieffrom theCourts.Theotherprovisionis

Section17oftheActwhichalsoprovidesforgrantofinterim relieffrom theArbitral

Tribunalitself,therebyminimizingthecostandpreventslitigation.Theobjectiveof

theseprovisionsistopreservetheprevailingsituationtilthefinaladjudicationofthe

disputes.Interim measuressuchasatachmentofproperty,issuingofcommissions,

protectionofassets,injunctionsetc.areeffectiveremediesforachievingtheidealsof truejustice.

INTERIMMEASURESBYNATIONALCOURTS

[I]nterim reliefismorereadilyavailableinlitigationthaninarbitration.Incontrastto

arbitration,wheretheneedtoselectthearbitratorsmaydelayforweeksormonthsthe

commencementofarbitralproceedings,acourtcanrespondimmediatelytoarequest

forinterimrelief,suchasanorderofprejudgmentatachmentofthedebtor’sassets.

Additionaly,arbitratorsmaylackthepowertoorderinterimrelief.Finaly,unlikeacourt,

infashioningprovisionalrelief,arbitratorsdonothaveauthorityovernon-partiestothe

arbitration.Forthesereasonsitmaybenecessarytotheeffectivenessofarbitration
thatpartieshavetheabilitytoturntoacourttoobtainprovisionalrelief. 5

Giventhepotentialproblemsassociatedwithseekinginterimreliefthrougharbitration,

thismayappeartobeanatractiveoption.Moreover,thereareseveralsituationswhere

despiterecentrevisionsoftheapplicableRulesrecoursetoanationalcourtwilbe

absolutelynecessary.One,suchsituationiswhereapartyurgentlyneedsenforceable

expartereliefbecauseofalegitimateconcernabouttheotherparty’sbadfaith.

Asecondproblemthatcannotberesolvedthroughthearbitralprocessiswhereathird

partypossessesinformationorassetsthatareimplicatedbythearbitration.6Insuch

instances,theoptiontoapplytoanationalcourtforinterimreliefiscritical.Whetherthe

nationalcourtoptionisavailabletoapartyisaquestionthatmustbeaddressedunder

boththeapplicablelawandRules.

SomeAmericancourtshaveinterpretedArticleI(3)oftheNewYorkConventionto prohibitthem

from entertainingrequestsforinterim reliefinaidofarbitration.Article

I(3)providesthatanationalcourtwithinanationthatispartytotheConvention“shal”

referthepartiestoarbitrationattherequestofoneoftheparties.Thecourtsviewedthe

applicationsinthosecasesasatemptstobypassorcircumventthearbitration

agreementcompletely.7Someauthorsalsosupportthisviewbystating“thatArticleI(3)

divestsanationalcourtofjurisdictiontoorderatachmentinaidofarbitration,ortodo

anythingelseotherthancompelarbitration.”8

5KarenHalversonCross,ArbitrationasaMeansofResolvingSovereignDebtDisputes,17AM.REV.INT’L
ARB.335,337-38(2008)
6GaryB.Born,InternationalCommercialArbitration1960-61(2009).
7McCrearyTire&RubberCo.v.CEATS.p.A.,501F.2d1032,1038(3dCir.1974)
8GaryB.Born,InternationalCommercialArbitration1960-61(2009).
Othercourts,however,haverejectedthatreasoning.Notably,inthosecasesitappears

thattheapplicantsdidnotdisputethattheyhadtopursuearbitrationasprovidedin

theiragreementsthatiswherethereisnojurisdictionalchalenge.Mostobservers

regardthislaterlineofauthorityasmorepersuasiverationalastheformerthreatens,

ratherthanfurthers,thearbitralprocess,bydenyingwhatisoftentheonlyrealistic

meansofpreservingthestatusquo.Thatviewissharedbytheoverwhelmingmajority

ofcommentators.

Atleastonecommentatorhasatemptedtoharmonizethetwopositionsbyexplaining

that,incaseswherethecourtshavefoundinterimreliefinconsistentwiththeNewYork

Convention,theapplicantwasseekingthatreliefinlieuofthearbitration,notinaidof

it.9

PositionundertheIndianLaw
Section9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct1996isfoundinPartIofthe

ArbitrationActandempowersIndiancourtstograntinterim measuresinaidof

arbitrationproceedings.Apartymay,beforeorduringarbitralproceedingsoratany

timeafterthemakingofthearbitralawardbutbeforeitisenforcedinaccordancewith

section36,applytoacourtfortheappointmentofaguardianforaminororapersonof

unsoundmindforthepurposesofarbitralproceedingsorforaninterim measureof

protectioninrespectofanyofthefolowingmatersnamely:-

 Thepreservation,interim custodyorsaleofanygoods,whicharethesubject

materofthearbitrationagreement.

9GaryB.Born,InternationalCommercialArbitration1960-61(2009).
  Securingtheamountindisputeinthearbitration;


 Thedetention,preservationorinspectionofanypropertyorthingwhichisthe

subjectmaterofthedisputeinarbitration,orastowhichanyquestionmayarise

thereinandauthorisingforanyoftheaforesaidpurposesanypersontoenter

uponanylandorbuildinginthepossessionofanyparty,orauthorisingany

samplestobetakenoranyobservationtobemadeorexperimenttobetried, which

maybenecessaryorexpedientforthepurposeofobtaining ful informationorevidence.




 Interiminjunctionortheappointmentofareceiver


 SuchotherinterimmeasuresofprotectionasmayappeartotheCourttobejust

andconvenientandthecourtshalhavethesamepowerformakingordersasit

hasforthepurposeofandinrelationto,anyproceedingsbeforeit.

Alsuchfactors,whichthecourtconsidersinpassinginterimorder,wouldbeapplicable

toorderspassedunderSection9oftheActalso.Basicaly,thepartyseekinginjunctive

reliefshouldestablishalikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,ireparableharmsthat

mightbecausedtohimiftheinterimreliefisdeniedandthebalanceofconveniencein

itsfavour.10

INTERIMMEASURESBYARBITRALTRIBUNAL
Arbitraltribunals,similarlytonationalcourtshavethepowertograntinterim or

10
Pawan Agarwal,Interim Measures ofProtection in Arbitration– An Analysis,available at:
htps://international-arbitration-atorney.com/wp-content/uploads/arbitrationlaw10962dec04p715-722.pdf
provisionalmeasurespendingfinaldeterminationofthedisputebeforethem.However,

arbitratorscannotactuntiltheyhavebeendulyappointed.Incasesofurgency,the

courtsoftheseatmaybeempoweredtosupportanascentarbitrationbyordering

interimmeasureswherethetribunalisnotyetabletoact.Insuchcases,thenational

courts‘holdthering’untilsuchtimeasthetribunalhasbeenconstituted.Theymayalso

assistatribunalwhereitlacksthepowertomakeanecessaryorder.11

Internationalarbitraltribunalswilusualyhavebeengrantedwidepowerstogrant interim

relief.TheICC Rules2012alow thearbitratorsto“orderanyinterim or

conservatorymeasureitdeemsappropriate”,andtorequestappropriatesecurityfrom

therequestingparty.12ThenewICCRulesalsocontainprovisionsfortheappointment

ofanemergencyarbitrator,whocangrantinterim reliefexpeditiouslybeforetheful

tribunalhasbeenappointed.However,theICC’semergencyprocedureisnotavailable

wherethepartiesenteredintotheirarbitrationagreementbefore1January2012.

heLCIARulescontainalitlemoredetail,andrefertotheprovisionofsecurityfor

claimsorcounterclaims,the“preservation,storage,saleorotherdisposalofany

propertyorthingunderthecontrolofanypartyandrelatingtothesubjectmaterofthe

arbitration”,andgrantinganyreliefthatmightbethesubjectofafinalawardona

provisionalbasis,includingthepaymentofmoneyorthedispositionofproperty.13

BoththeICCandtheLCIARulespermitapartytoapplytoacompetentnationalcourt

forinterimmeasureswherethetribunalhasnotyetbeenappointed,orinexceptional

11
Melanie Wilems,“That’s A Relief(Interim):The English Court’s Approach In Arbitrations”,
htps://www.andrewskurth.com/insights-1084.html
12ICCRules,Article28.1
13LCIARules,Article25.3
caseswherethetribunalcannotact.Thepowersofacompetentnationalcourtwil

naturalybedeterminedbythearbitrationlawsoftherelevantjurisdiction.

PositionundertheIndianLaw

Section17oftheActisessentialybasedontheModelLawwithveryfewdepartures

andcontainstwoconditions–FirstlythattheArbitralTribunalmustregardtheinterim

measureofprotectionasnecessary,andsecondly,thereliefhadtobeinrespectofthe

subjectmaterofthedispute.TheArbitralTribunalisempoweredbySection17toorder

apartytotakeanyinterimmeasuresofprotectioninrespectofthesubjectmaterof

thedispute,andalsodirectthepartyinwhosefavourtheorderhasbeenpassedto

provideappropriatesecurityasprovidedinSection17(2)oftheAct.Theexpression ‘interim

measureofprotection’inSection17iswideenoughtoincludealthose

measureswhichthepartiesthemselvescouldhaveachievedbyagreement.The

protectionenvisagedisinrelationtosometangiblepropertyandnotanindeterminate

monetaryclaim.

However,therearevariouslimitingfactors.Firstly,apartyhastowaitforthecreationof

theArbitralTribunalbeforeitcanclaim relieffrom itandsecondly,thereisno

mechanismtoenforceanyorderoftheArbitralTribunal.Asfarasthefirstlimitationis

concerned,thesolutionlieswithinthe1996Actitself.Section9oftheActprovides

powertotheCourttograntinterimrelieftoanyparty.ThepowersunderSection9are

muchwiderinasmuchastheyextendtotheperiod“pre”and“post”theawardaswelas

withregardtothesubjectmaterandnatureoftheorders.Further,thependencyofan

applicationunderSection17doesnotdenudetheCourtofitspowerstomakeanorder

forinterimmeasuresunderSection9oftheAct.
Tribunalthepowertopassorders,thesamecannotbeenforcedasordersofaCourt.

TheActnowhereprovidesfortheconsequencesofbreachofanorderoftheArbitral

TribunalunderSection17oftheAct.Section37(2)(b)oftheActonlyprovidesforan

appealwithrespecttograntorrefusaltograntaninterim measurebytheArbitral

TribunalunderSection17.

DISTINCTIONBETWEENPOWERSUNDERSECTION9ANDSECTION17
ThepowerconferredonaCourttomakeinterimmeasuresunderSection9oftheActis

muchwiderincontent,sweepandextentcomparedtothepoweravailabletoArbitral

TribunaltomakeinterimmeasuresunderSection17oftheAct.ArbitralTribunalderives

jurisdictionbyreasonofthearbitrationagreement.ThepartiestotheArbitration

proceedingsalonewould,therefore,bewithinthescopeofthejurisdictionexercisedby

theArbitralTribunal.Also,itisobviousthatarbitraltribunalcangrantanyinterim

measureonlyafteritisconstituted.ThislimitationisnotapplicabletoCourtsand

therefore,inmatersofgraveurgency,partiesmayfinditappropriatetoinvokethe

Court’sjurisdictioninstead.

TheCourtcanexercisepowerunderSection9oftheActatanytimeevenbeforethe

arbitralproceedingsarecommenced.Thereisanauthoritativepronouncementofthe

SupremeCourtinthisregardinSundaram FinanceLimitedVs.NEPCIndiaLimited 14

posingaquestionastowhetherthecourthasjurisdictiontopassinterimevenbefore

thearbitralproceedingscommenceandbeforeanarbitratorisappointed.Supreme

CourtsaidthatthepoweroftheCourttopassanyorderunderSection9oftheActcan

141999(2)SCC479
beexercisedatanystageevenbeforethecommencementofthearbitralproceedings.

POSITIONUNDERUNCITRALMODELLAW

TheUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration,whichhasbeen

adoptedinsomeform inmorethansixtyjurisdictions15,provides:“Unlessotherwise

agreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,attherequestofaparty,orderanyparty

totakesuchinterim measureofprotectionasthearbitraltribunalmayconsider

necessaryinrespectofthesubject-materofthedispute.Thearbitraltribunalmay

requireanypartytoprovideappropriatesecurityinconnectionwithsuchmeasure.”16

The1985UNCITRALModelLawprovidedforinterim measuresvideArticle17.The

provisionhowevercontainedtwoexpressconditions:Themeasurehadtobeshownto

be"necessary"andbe“Inrespectofthesubjectmaterofthedispute”.Besides,there

wereatleasttwoinherenthurdlesinthepath.First,onehastoawaittheconstitutionof

thetribunalandalowforareasonableopportunityforittoassembleattheseatandfor

theoppositesidetorespondtotherequest.Thisessentialyruledoutreliefinthecase

ofurgency(andmoreoftenthannotanapplicationforinterimreliefcannotbrookdelay).

Secondly,therewasnomechanismtoenforceanorderofthetribunal.

The1985ModelLawproceededonanassumptionthatthepartieswouldvoluntarily

accepttheinterimorderofthetribunalandtherewouldbenoneedtoevencontemplate

ofanenforcementprocedure.Ontheotherhand,ifapartyfelttheneedforan

15UNCITRALStatus,htp://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitraltexts/
arbitration/1985Modelarbitration_status.html
16Article17,UNCITRALModelLaw
enforceableorder,itwouldnotbeincompatibleforittoapproachacourtwitharequest

inthisregard.Thepositionwasnotsatisfactoryandafteranelaboratedprocess,in

December,2006theUNCITRALModelLawstoodamended.TheoldArticle17stands

completelyreplacedbyanextensiveschemeprovidinginteraliaforexparteordersand

forinterimmeasurestobebindingandenforceable.

Itdefinesinterimmeasureasatemporarymeasure,“whetherintheformofanawardor

inanotherform”soughtpriortothefinalresolutionofthedispute.TheModelLaw

furtherprovidesthatnationalcourtsgeneralyshalenforceinterim measuresand

explicitlypermitsapplicationstonationalcourtsforinterimmeasures.

Inordertoobtaininterim relief,anapplicantmustshow ireparableharm that

“substantialyoutweighs”anyharmthatmayresulttotheopposingpartyandthatthere

isareasonable“possibility”thattheapplicantwilsucceed on itsclaim.One

commentatorhasarguedthatthisstandardrequiresapartyseekinginterim reliefto

establish:“imminentdangerorriskofseriousprejudice,”whichincorporatesanimplied

elementof“urgency,”and“thattheriskofharmtotheirlegalinterestsissogreatthat

anyresultingdamagecannotbeproperlycompensatedbyamonetaryaward,orthatit

cannotbefinancialycompensatedbyvirtueofitsverynature.”17Thus,thestandard

encompassesabalancingtest,wherebythebenefittotheapplicant“mustoutweighits

prejudicialeffectonthepartyagainstwhom itisdirected.”However,thetribunalhas

discretiontodeterminewhetherornottoapplythisstandardwheretheapplicantis

merelyseekingtopreserveevidence

17KieranRobertHickie,TheEnforceabilityofInterimMeasuresofProtectionGrantedbyArbitralTribunals
OutsidetheSeatofArbitration:ANewApproach,12VINDOBONAJ.INT’LCOM.L.&ARB.221,223 (2008).
Article17nowsetsforththepowersofthearbitraltribunalinthewidestterms.The

earliertwinconditionshavebeendoneawaywith.TheamendedArticle17interalia

empowersthearbitraltribunaltomaintainorrestorethestatusquo;directapartyto

refrainfromdoinganythingwhichmayprejudicialyaffectthearbitralprocess;providea

meansforpreservingassetsforsatisfactionoftheaward,orpreserveevidencethat

maybematerialforresolutionofthedispute.Thetribunalmaydosobyframingits

orderinaformofanawardorotherwiseasitmaydeemappropriate.

Article17Aprovidesfortheconditionswhichmustbesatisfiedforgrantofaninterim

measure.These conditions are universalyrecognised:balance ofconvenience;

irreparableharmand“areasonablepossibilitythattherequestingpartywilsucceedon

themeritsoftheclaim”.

Article17Bissomewhatrevolutionaryintherealm ofarbitrationasitintroducesthe

conceptofexparteadinterimorders(caled"preliminaryorders").Thescopeofsuch

ordersisnarrowerandisessentialyconfinedtomaintainingthestatusquo.Anexparte

ordershalbevalidonlyfor20daysfromthedateofitsissuance(withinwhichtimethe

tribunalmayaffirmormodifytheorderafternoticeandanopportunitytotheopposite

sidetopresentitscase).Thegeneralconditionforexparteordersisthatthetribunal

wilrequiretheapplicanttoprovideappropriatesecurityinconnectionwiththesame

unlessthetribunalconsidersitunnecessarytodoso.Anexparteordershalbebinding

onthepartiesbutshalnotbeenforceablebyacourtprocess.Furthersuchanorder

shalnotbeintheformofanaward.

PerhapsthemostfarreachingamendmenttotheModelLawisvideArticle17HandI.
This providesforrecognitionandenforcementofaninterimmeasureorderedbythe

tribunal(i.e.otherthananexparteorder).Article17Hinteraliastatesthataninterim

measureshalberecognizedasbinding,unlessotherwisestatedbythetribunal.Itmay

beenforceduponapplicationtoacompetentcourtirespectiveofthecountryinwhich

itwasissued.Recognitionandenforcementmayberefusedonlyonthegroundsstated

inArticle17I.

SubArticles(i)to(iv)ofArticle36(1)(a)oftheModelLawconstitutethefirstsetof

groundsforrefusaltoenforceaninterimmeasure.Further,aninterimmeasurewilnot

berecognisedifthecourtfindsthatthegroundssetforthinArticle361(b)(i)or(i) applytotheinterim

measureinquestion.Article361(b)(i)providesforrefusalto

enforceifthesubjectmaterofthedisputeisnotcapableofsetlementbyarbitration

underthelawsoftheenforcingStateandArticle36(1)(b)(i)providesforthepublic policyground.

CONCLUSION
Fromtimetotime,theinterestsofjusticemayrequirethemakingofordersinrelation

togoodsorotherproperty,pendingthehearingandtheaward.Suchordersfulfiltwo

distinctfunctions:

1.Theyensurethatthepropertywhichisthesubjectofdisputedoesnotcometo

harmuntilthedisputehasbeenresolved;and

2.Wheretheproperty,oranaspectofit,isanitemofevidenceinthereferencethey

ensurethatthepartiesareabletoexploititsevidentiaryvalueintheful.
Itissubmitedthatlacunasintheprovisionsofinterimmeasuresshouldbesetrightby

legislativeinitiation.Thesystem ofdualagencyforprovidingreliefneedstobe

abolishedorotherwisesomeenforcementmechanismbeprovidedforenforcementof

theinterimmeasuresofprotectionsorderedbytheArbitralTribunal.Itwouldbebeter

thatapplicationofinterimmeasuresisputtothearbitraltribunalsastheyareseizedof

thesubjectmaterunderdisputes.Onlywhenapartyisnotabletogetrelieffromthe

arbitraltribunal,orifitisamaterofurgencyandthetribunalhasnotbeenconstituted,

itshouldbealowedtoknockthedoorsoftheCourt.Thiswilbeinlinewiththe

objectivesoftheActtominimisetheinterventionoftheCourtinarbitralproceedings.

Toconclude,Indiahasputinplaceaprogressivepieceoflegislationwhichisessentialy

basedontheModelLawandtheUNCITRALArbitrationRules.Anydeparturetherefrom

isessentialyaimedatkeepingcourtinterventionatbay.

Indiahasaneffectivelawinplace.Whatitnowneedsisinculcationofthecultureof

arbitrationwithinthebar,thebenchandthearbitralcommunity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:

 AlanRedfern,RedfernandHunteronInternationalArbitration

 GaryB.Born,InternationalCommercialArbitration

Articles:

 Stephen M.Ferguson,Interim Measures of Protection in International

CommercialArbitration:Problems,ProposedSolutions,andAnticipatedResults,
12CURRENTS:INT’LTRADEL.J.
  RaymondJ.Werbicki,ArbitralInterimMeasures:FactorFiction?,57DISP.RESOL. 

J.62,64

 PeterJ.W.SherwinandDouglasC.Rennie,“Interim ReliefunderInternational
ArbitrationRulesandGuidelines:AComparativeAnalysis”,TheAmericanReview
ofInternationalArbitration

 KarenHalversonCross,ArbitrationasaMeansofResolvingSovereignDebt

Disputes,17AM.REV.INT’LARB.

 PawanAgarwal,InterimMeasuresofProtectioninArbitration–AnAnalysis,
availableat:htps://international-arbitration-atorney.com/wp-
content/uploads/arbitrationlaw10962dec04p715-722.pdf

 MelanieWilems,“That’sARelief(Interim):TheEnglishCourt’sApproachIn
Arbitrations”,htps://www.andrewskurth.com/insights-1084.html

 KieranRobertHickie,TheEnforceabilityofInterim MeasuresofProtection
GrantedbyArbitralTribunalsOutsidetheSeatofArbitration:ANewApproach,12
VINDOBONAJ.INT’LCOM.L.&ARB.221,223(2008).