The provisions in the SIAC Rules for emergency arbitration do not violate Indian laws (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Editor

­Future Retail Limited v. Amazon.Com Investment Holdings LLC and others Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: CS (Comm) 493 of 2020 | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1636 |Bench: Mukta Gupta J | Date: 21 December 2020 | Final or interim decision: Interim Appellate proceedings: Appeal filed by Amazon pending

Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Balance of convenience |  Conditions for grant of interim injunction |  Control |  Emergency arbitration  |  Emergency Award |  Interim injunction |  Interim measures |  Interim relief  |  Irreparable loss |  Multi-brand retail |  Prima facie case |  Schedule I |  Section 9 CPC |  SIAC Rules |  Tortious interference |  Ubi jus ibi remedium  

The SIAC Emergency Arbitrator Enforcement Experience

     Blog by Vivekananda N.

An earlier version of this blog was published in the SIAC India Newsletter, Issue No.1 available here.   THE SIAC EA EXPERIENCE About 6 years ago, I penned a short piece on Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s (“SIAC”) experience with the emergency arbitrator (“EA”) provisions which had been introduced in 2010

Continue reading
Categories: Emergency arbitration  |  Emergency Arbitrator |  Emergency Award |  Section 9 |  SIAC  

Bombay High Court’s ad-interim order based on an Emergency Award passed in a SIAC Arbitration

     Update by Editor

Plus Holdings Limited v. Xeitgeist Entertainment Group Limited and others Bombay High Court; single-judge bench, GS Kulkarni J; 07 March 2020   GS Kulkarni J of the Bombay High Court recently passed an ad-interim injunction under Section 9 ACA recognising and thus giving effect to an Emergency Award made by

Continue reading
Categories: Emergency Arbitrator |  Emergency Award |  Section 9