The petitioner had won the case and received an award amount in its favor. The proceedings were done in the seat of Arbitration in London, the UK which has been governed by British law.
The award was governed by ICC. But Respondent has moved an application under sec 9 of the act to seek protective orders.
The plea was on before the court was ‘Whether the governing law was there in the agreement when disputes arise between the parties to the arbitration before the ICC excludes the operation of sec 9 of the act’?
The parties were excluded by sec 9 of the act but they governed under English law.
So they approach England court or ICC to take any legal action. The other party also submitted to not allow or grant any form is interim relief.
CALCUTTA HC OBSERVATION:-
An agreement is contrary and under sec 2(2) says that it must be express not implied. The court rejected that the word express is omitted so an application of sec 9 is excluded from International Arbitration proceedings.
The court opined to the law commission to notice the lack of remedy in furtherance of the award. The court also held that sec 9 is maintainable and the petitioner will get interim relief. The matter was next heard on August 11.