BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. V. KAISER TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court held that Part I does not apply to arbitrations seated outside India. The seat controls supervision. Even if the contract uses Indian governing law, a foreign seat keeps the case outside Indian courts’ supervisory reach. The Court also overruled Bhatia International and limited interim relief from Indian courts for foreign-seated disputes.

Issues

• Does Part I apply when the arbitration is held outside India?
• How do seat and venue differ in law?
• Do Indian courts have power to give interim measures for foreign-seated cases?

Rules

• Territorial (Seat) Theory: Courts of the seat supervise the arbitration (UNCITRAL approach).
• Part I vs Part II: Part I applies to India-seated cases; Part II deals with foreign awards/enforcement.
• No overlap: The two parts are distinct and should not be mixed.

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court drew a clear line between Part I and Part II. A foreign seat places the arbitration outside Indian courts’ supervisory power. Merely naming India as governing law of the contract does not pull the case into Part I. The Court overruled Bhatia International and held that interim measures from Indian courts are generally not available for foreign-seated arbitrations (prospectively).

Ratio

Arbitration is seat-centric. If the seat is outside India, Indian courts cannot apply Part I or exercise supervisory jurisdiction; India’s role is mainly enforcement under Part II.

Why It Matters

• Gives certainty to parties choosing a foreign seat.
• Aligns Indian law with UNCITRAL’s territorial theory.
• Stops mixing Part I into foreign-seated cases.

Key Takeaways

1. Seat decides supervision: Foreign seat → no Part I.
2. Contract law ≠ curial law: Indian governing law doesn’t change the seat rule.
3. Bhatia overruled: No interim relief from Indian courts for foreign seats (prospective).

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: S-P-E — Seat, Part, Enforcement.

1. Seat: Legal home controls supervision.
2. Part: Foreign seat = Part II (not Part I).
3. Enforcement: Use Part II for recognition in India.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Is Part I applicable to foreign-seated arbitration?

Rule: Territorial theory—courts at the seat supervise; India’s Part I applies only to India-seated cases.

Application: Despite Indian governing law, London seat placed control with English courts; Indian Section 34 challenge fails.

Conclusion: Part I inapplicable; Bhatia overruled; interim relief in India generally unavailable for foreign seats.

Glossary

Seat

Legal home of the arbitration; decides court control and curial law.

Venue

Physical place of hearings; does not fix legal supervision.

Part I / Part II

Part I: India-seated; Part II: foreign awards and enforcement.

Bhatia International

Earlier view allowing Part I in foreign-seated cases—overruled by BALCO.

FAQs

Related Cases