In the face of urgent threats to assets in India, legal practitioners often prioritize seeking relief from Indian courts over the newly recognized option of emergency arbitration. JSA Partner Dheeraj Nair highlighted this preference during a panel discussion at Singapore Convention Week 2026, emphasizing that while emergency arbitration is gaining traction, Indian courts offer the fastest and most reliable recourse in urgent situations.
Nair, speaking at an event organized by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and Drew & Napier, pointed out that the immediacy of getting a case listed in Indian courts, even over a weekend, is unmatched by arbitration institutions like the MCIA or SIAC. “As a practitioner, the first step is to approach the Indian court. If it’s a Friday evening, you can expect the matter to be listed by Monday morning. Achieving a similar timeline through emergency arbitration is uncertain,” Nair stated.
The panel, titled “The Expanding Reach of Emergency Arbitration: A New Global Trend,” included notable figures such as AZB & Partners’ Abhijnan Jha, MCIA’s Registrar and Secretary General Neeti Sachdeva, and independent counsel Alipak Banerjee. Moderated by Mahesh Rai from Drew & Napier, the discussion focused on the practical decision-making process when clients require immediate protection—whether to opt for an emergency arbitrator or head directly to court.
Nair discussed the viability of emergency arbitration as a substitute for court-ordered interim relief, noting that the decision hinges on factors like asset location, the party against whom enforcement is sought, and the speed and effectiveness of the remedy. He clarified that when assets in India face imminent threats, the preferred route is the Indian court system rather than pursuing an emergency order abroad and then seeking enforcement domestically.
However, Nair acknowledged that emergency arbitration can be effective when relief is needed directly against a contracting party, without involving third-party or state mechanisms.
The conversation also touched on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amazon v. Future Retail, which recognized emergency arbitration in Indian-seated arbitrations. Jha, representing Amazon in that case, explained that India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act is sufficiently adaptable to incorporate innovative arbitration procedures, even without explicit statutory provisions for emergency arbitrators. He highlighted the judgment’s emphasis on “party accountability,” meaning parties choosing emergency arbitration through institutional rules like MCIA or SIAC are considered bound by those choices.
Despite this, Jha noted that the ruling did not address foreign-seated emergency arbitration orders, citing varying approaches among Indian High Courts. He mentioned that courts in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Karnataka generally adopt a more deferential stance towards such orders when considering Section 9 relief.
MCIA’s Neeti Sachdeva shared insights from an institutional perspective, stating that MCIA can appoint an emergency arbitrator within one business day and typically issues decisions within 14 days. However, she acknowledged the challenge of delivering an emergency order by Monday if an application is filed on a Friday.
More Read
Sachdeva also noted that while MCIA has processed few emergency arbitration applications, they have met the 14-day deadline in most cases. The institution avoids granting emergency relief without notice to the opposing party, respecting existing Indian legal standards.
Alipak Banerjee emphasized the growing scale of emergency arbitration involving Indian parties, citing SIAC statistics that show India as a leading participant in emergency arbitrations since 2010. He suggested that as arbitral institutions increasingly adopt without-notice emergency relief, reliance on courts might decrease.
The panel concluded by acknowledging the need for legal reform in India to better accommodate foreign-seated emergency arbitration.
