#Bombay High Court arbitration

Bombay High Court rules that interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act remains available even after a Section 34 challenge, but only if the applicant demonstrates concrete evidence of potential asset dissipation. The court permitted asset disclosure and deposit of the awarded amount to prevent award frustration, setting a precedent for post-award asset protection in arbitration disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that subcontractors cannot be bound by an arbitration clause from a main contract unless the clause is expressly incorporated with specific reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This clarifies consent requirements for non-signatories and impacts construction and infrastructure disputes where subcontracting is common.

The Bombay High Court ruled that nine years of inactivity in arbitration, without any communication or effort to revive proceedings, does not automatically constitute abandonment. Only where conduct clearly indicates an intention to relinquish the reference can the mandate be terminated under Section 32(2)(c), barring appointment of a substitute arbitrator. This sets a high threshold for termination, protecting parties from premature extinguishment of arbitration rights.