Factual Background 

In the case of Balasore Alloys Limited v Medima LLC The appellants, who were the subject of an award rendered by the International Court of Arbitration, argued that the provision in their agreement related to British law would preclude Indian courts from granting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The appellants maintained that unless the requirements for such enforcements under the Act are met, foreign awards are not inherently enforceable in Indian courts. They contend that the legislative aim to separate a domestic award from a foreign honour can be observed in the apparent distinction. The appellants maintained that unless the requirements for such enforcements under the Act are met, foreign awards are not inherently enforceable in Indian courts. They contend that the legislative aim to separate a domestic award from a foreign honour can be observed in the apparent distinction. As a result, it was asserted that Section 9 cannot be used once a foreign award had been made.

Issue 

whether the Arbitration Act’s Section 9 is relevant to a foreign award in light of Section 2(2) even before any actions are taken to make the award enforceable.

Courts Decision 

Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas of the Calcutta High Court A Division Bench ruled that it was illogical to claim that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would only apply to a foreign arbitration before or during arbitral proceedings and held that the provision would still be applicable after an award was made.

The adjustment made to Section 2 of the Act in connection to international commercial arbitration, in the opinion of the Bench, would be unnecessary if a narrow interpretation of the clause were applied. The appellant’s argument that section 9’s language must be interpreted narrowly such that it only applies to foreign awards made before or during the arbitration hearing defies logic. The words before it must not be given a limiting meaning and must be harmoniously interpreted while taking into account the purpose of the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act’s incorporation.

The Court also stated that the intention behind the inclusion of the amendment was admirable and that any narrow construction would defeat that intention. The language used there makes it clear that no constraints are placed on the application of the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act, except the extent to which the exclusion is based on an agreement by and between the parties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of PASL Wind Solutions Pvt Ltd v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt Ltd, in which the top court rejected the argument that Section 9 does not in any way apply to a foreign award, was cited by the High Court in support of its decision. As a result, the appeal was denied and the decision was upheld.