Introduction
As the landscape of arbitration rapidly expands, the 2025 amendments to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s Arbitration Rules [“SIAC Rules”],[i] have introduced significant and novel provisions. The most notable feature is the provision of Protective Preliminary Orders [“PPOs”] under the First Schedule of the Rules, designed to enhance the speed and efficiency of emergency arbitrations. Within the regime of Emergency Arbitrations, PPOs emerge as a pivotal mechanism as they contribute towards enhancing the procedural agility and protection of rights of the parties while also positioning SIAC as a global arbitration hub.
However, whether the Indian arbitration regime is prepared to accommodate these developments and procedural shifts remains a critical question. Indian parties have been among the top users of SIAC since 2010. Given this strong engagement, developments in SIAC Rules inevitably influence both Indian parties and the broader Indian arbitration regime. This blog identifies the core problems which can hinder the enforcement of SIAC’s PPOs in India. Further, it recommends tools and mechanisms under which PPOs can function without jeopardising the Indian public policy.
Understanding PPOs under SIAC Rules, 2025
Modelled on Rule 17B of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,[ii] a PPO, which as the name suggests, is a preliminary order issued by an EA. Within the new SIAC Rules, parties in an arbitration are allowed to file a PPO application in an ex parte manner. To simplify, if a party requests for appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator [“EA”] under Rule 12 of the Rules,[iii] and seeks interim relief subsequently, a PPO application can be filed by them to safeguard the emergency interim measure requested. The EA can direct the responding party to ‘not frustrate the purpose of the interim measure’ for which the PPO has been sought. Therefore, a PPO shall act as a safety net for the parties to fall back on, should their emergency request be impeded.
To understand the procedural framework that governs PPOs we first understand how issuance of PPOs is done. The process begins with an application of a PPO (together with a request for an interim measure) to the President of the SIAC Court, who determines whether to accept or reject the application. If the application is accepted, an EA is appointed within 24 hours of approval by the President. Before the interim relief proceeding commences, the EA must determine the validity of the PPO application within 24 hours after his appointment. What makes the provision of PPO particularly problematic is that the responding party remains uninvolved in the proceedings from the initiation of the application to the issuance of the protective order by the EA.
The interests of the responding party are met after the order has been issued by the EA. The requesting party, which seeks the PPO, is required to deliver the preliminary order granted by the EA to the responding party; otherwise, the same expires within three days. Notwithstanding this expiration, a PPO has a 14-day lifespan. The EA can then affirm, amend, or include the PPO in the final emergency relief only after the interim relief proceedings are over.
Role of Rule 17B of the UNCITRAL Model Law
While the SIAC Rules do not expressly mention the term ‘ex parte’, the introduction of the provision of preliminary orders makes SIAC one of the first international arbitration institutions to grant ex parte relief. As highlighted, the amendments are modelled on the Rule 17B UNCITRAL Model Law,[iv] which allows for an arbitral tribunal to grant ex parte preliminary orders to protect interim measures from being obstructed.
However, Rule 17B was subject to considerable debate due to its ex parte nature.[v] The Working Group for the Model Rules had expressed concerns about the potential risks of granting interim relief without hearing both parties, especially in the context of international arbitration. After rounds of deliberation, the Working Group concluded that ex parte measures may be necessary in exceptional situations, especially to preserve the status quo or prevent the destruction of evidence.
To counter these concerns, the Model Law set a time limit of 20 days on such preliminary orders, thus incorporating safeguards against ex parte relief under Rule 17B. Likewise, SIAC Rules also set a limit of 14 days. Further, SIAC also requires that the responding party be allowed to represent their case at the earliest stage possible after the PPO is issued.
Another important safeguard under both Rule 17B as well as the SIAC framework,[vi] is the principle of party autonomy. Parties can expressly agree to exclude the tribunal’s power to issue such ex parte orders. Thus, under SIAC, the responding party is saved from being permanently excluded as they must be heard shortly after the preliminary order is granted. Furthermore, SIAC’s strict 3-day notification rule further curtails the risk of abuse.
Therefore, though the provision of PPOs is laden with practical and due process concerns, parallel safeguards curtail the risk of their misuse. Further, it encourages parties to act swiftly while protecting their rights without compromising the broader principle of party equality.
Understanding PPOs in the Indian Context
Interim reliefs within Indian arbitration are broadly governed by Sections 9 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Arbitration Act”].[vii] While Section 9 deals with interim measures by Indian courts, Section 17 deals with interim measures by the arbitral tribunals. However, the problem arises regarding the scope of emergency arbitrations as well as ex parte preliminary orders, upon which the Arbitration Act remains silent. Thus, introducing PPOs within the Indian arbitration regime would raise significant concerns like whether the Indian arbitration is prepared for such a procedural leap and more importantly, are the Indian arbitration institutions ready to adapt?
Judicial Developments and Conflicting Precedents
Indian courts have largely beaten around the bush, avoiding a direct and conclusive stance on the enforceability of emergency arbitral relief. Courts in recent decisions like Raffles Design, (¶ 99)[viii] have denied the enforceability of an emergency award issued in a foreign-seated arbitration due to the absence of its specific recognition within the Arbitration Act. However, with a conflicting stance in Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin, (¶ 55)[ix] the court placed orders passed by an EA on the same footing as those by an arbitral tribunal.
In the landmark judgement of Amazon v. Future [“Amazon”], (¶ 41)[x] the Supreme Court of India held that interim orders by EAs are enforceable as an order under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act.[xi] In order to recognize emergency awards as binding and enforceable and to put them on par with the court-ordered interim remedy under Section 9, the court relied on the principles of party autonomy as well as the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration Act.
The goal of rapid relief is defeated when it comes to foreign-seated arbitrations because parties have no other option than to submit a new application under Section 9 of the Act. That said, recent developments reflect a pro-enforcement approach. For instance, last year in Ashok Kumar Goel v. Ebixcash, (¶ 29F)[xii] the Bombay High Court, under Section 9, enforced an interim award held by a foreign-seated EA. Although the court did not enforce the award per se, it treated the EA’s decision as persuasive evidence in favour of granting interim relief.
Institutional and legislative readiness
PPOs can significantly accelerate the process of commercial arbitrations in India, considering how frequently interim reliefs get contested in Indian courts. However, despite the steps taken by Indian courts, the scope of inclusion of PPOs within the Indian arbitration regime still remains bleak, Unlike emergency arbitrations, whose legal status has been settled by Amazon,[xiii] PPOs are ex parte, preliminary and procedural in nature, making them even more vulnerable to challenges under Indian law.
On the brighter side, at an institutional level, India shows that it is adapting well. Indian arbitration centres such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration [“MCIA”], the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”], and the Indian Council of Arbitration [“ICA”] have incorporated emergency arbitration provisions into their respective rules. However, they currently don’t provide for PPOs or a similar preliminary interim relief mechanism.
Moreover, the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 [“Draft Bill”],[xiv] also offers a potential path forward by introducing Section 9A,[xv] which explicitly recognises Emergency Arbitration. While the draft remains silent on a preliminary relief mechanism like PPOs, nonetheless, the inclusion of Emergency Arbitration itself reflects a willingness to evolve.
A solution to this interim-conundrum could, therefore, lie in the inclusion of preliminary relief measures within the Draft Bill. Further, institutional rules of DIAC, MCIA and ICA could also incorporate these measures with appropriate safeguards, to ensure protection of interests of both parties and to prevent misuse by the relief-seeking party.
Conclusion
While PPOs offer immense strategic value, their enforceability in India may still face legal resistance. Under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act,[xvi] foreign awards that are contrary to public policy may be refused enforcement. Given that PPOs are ex parte and issued without the responding party’s initial participation, they may be viewed as contrary to principles of natural justice. This is pertinent to note as the principle of audi alteram partem has been recognised as a core principle to Indian public policy.[xvii]
However, these risks can very well be prevented through safeguards such as strict timelines for notifying the respondent and ensuring they are given a fair opportunity to present their case, as provided under Rules 29 and 31 of the SIAC Rules,[xviii] respectively. Moreover, the role of party autonomy can serve the broader objective of making the arbitration process more efficient and offer parties a more flexible framework where they retain effective control.
As mentioned above, PPOs are safety nets for interim measures. They prevent the frustration of these measures even before they are granted. SIAC’s introduction of the provision reflects the aim of making commercial arbitrations more responsive to urgent and high-stakes disputes, wherein, grant of PPOs can expedite the process while preserving the interests of the party seeking urgent relief. For the Indian arbitration fora, the scope of enforcement of PPOs is huge, should they be implemented with due precautions. If institutions like DIAC, MCIA, and ICA, along with the upcoming Arbitration Bill, adopt provisions for preliminary order with safeguards similar to those under SIAC Rules and the UNCITRAL Model Law, India too will be in a position to champion itself as a global arbitration hub.
[i] Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules 7th Edition, 1 January 2025 [hereinafter, SIAC Rules].
[ii] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006), Rule 17B.
[iii] SIAC Rules, Rule 12.
[iv] n 2.
[v] n 2.
[vi] n 1.
[vii] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No 26 of 1996), [hereinafter, Arbitration Act] Sections 9, 17.
[viii] Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Educomp Professional Education Ltd & Ors 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5521, ¶ 99.
[ix] Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1648, ¶ 55.
[x] Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209, ¶ 41.
[xi] Arbitration Act, Section 17(2).
[xii] Ashok Kumar Goel v. Ebixcash Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3233, ¶ 29F.
[xiii] n 10.
[xiv] The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
[xv] n 14, p 5, “Insertion of New Section 9A”.
[xvi] Arbitration Act, Section 48.
[xvii] ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 263, ¶ 28.
[xviii] SIAC Rules, Rules 29, 31.
Author(s)
Sarah Singh
Student at NLU, Jodhpur