Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside an emergency arbitrator’s interim order after holding that such orders under the DIAC Rules, 2023 operate only for 90 days unless modified, substituted, vacated, or extended by the duly constituted arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned whether an emergency arbitrator could extend the operation of an interim measure beyond the 90-day period in a commercial disagreement between a public body and a private company. The Court concluded that only the arbitral tribunal may extend or vary the order, and since no tribunal had done so, the emergency order ceased to operate and was liable to be set aside. The Court directed maintenance of status quo for seven days to enable recourse before the proper forum.

The appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by an Emergency Arbitrator under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023. The appellant contended that the Emergency Arbitrator erred in extending the operation of the interim order beyond 90 days, arguing that only the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to do so under Rule 14.13 of the 2023 Rules. Counsel relied on paragraph 17 of the impugned order to support this claim.

Also Read:Delhi High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order, Directs Labour Court To Reconsider Maintainability Of Airport Employees Union’s Plea Against Air India Over Pay Parity

The respondent, Himalyan Flora and Aromas Pvt. Ltd., opposed this submission, asserting that the Emergency Arbitrator is empowered to extend, modify, or vary the interim order, and that the Rules do not prohibit such extension. It was further submitted that Rule 2(c) defines the term “Arbitral Tribunal” to include “Emergency Arbitrator,” thereby permitting similar powers. The respondent relied on a prior order dated 11.09.2025 in Arb. P. 714/2025, where similar objections had been dismissed. Both parties acknowledged that while the petition for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal had been allowed, arbitration proceedings had not yet commenced. The dispute revolved around whether the emergency order, operative for 11 months, could legally remain in force beyond the prescribed 90-day period without action from the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Court examined Rule 14.13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023, and “observed that the order passed by the Emergency Arbitrator shall remain operative for a period of 90 days from the date of passing of the order unless modified, substituted or vacated by the Arbitral Tribunal.” It stated that the term ‘emergency’ in ‘Emergency Arbitrator’ has significance, noting that the Emergency Arbitrator’s powers are limited to dealing with emergent situations and cannot extend beyond the initial 90-day period.

The Court further recorded that Rule 14.11 of the Rules of 2023 clearly bars the Emergency Arbitrator from being a part of the Arbitral Tribunal unless otherwise agreed by the parties, concluding that the two entities cannot be used interchangeably. It stated that no such agreement had been reached between the parties, thus the Emergency Arbitrator could not assume the role of the Arbitral Tribunal under Rule 14.13.

The Court noted that allowing the Emergency Arbitrator to exercise powers vested solely in the Arbitral Tribunal would defeat the object of emergency arbitration under the Act, and therefore held that the Emergency Arbitrator is only empowered to pass an order operative for 90 days from its passing. Since no modification, substitution, or vacation had occurred within that period, the order automatically ceased to operate.

The Court also recorded that the respondent is entitled to move an application under Section 9 or 17 of the A&C Act before the Arbitral Tribunal, and any such application would be considered in accordance with law. It observed that the emergency order, having already lived its life, must be set aside. Finally, the Court recognized that the order had remained in force for 11 months and, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo for seven days to enable the respondent to seek relief before the Arbitral Tribunal.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Woman’s Murder Conviction; First Dying Declaration Carries Evidentiary Value When Corroborated

The Court ordered that the “order dated 11.12.2024 stands set aside, as by operation of the scheme of the extant rules, the same became inoperative after 90 days from the date of its passing.” It directed that “status quo as existing today shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) days to enable the respondent to take redressal under Section 9 or 17 of the A&C Act. The observations made hereinabove are under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, and the Arbitral Tribunal shall deal with the matter strictly on the basis of the record and without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove, including the order of status quo being made operational for a limited period.” It declared that the appeal “stands allowed and disposed of accordingly; all pending applications also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay, Ms. Ritika, and Mr. Siddhartha, Advocates 
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Mishra, Ms. Vandita, Ms. Ayushi, Mr. Ajay, and Mr. Devansh, Advocates.
For Applicant in I.A. 10724/2025: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, and Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocates.

Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Himalyan Flora and Aromas Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8977
Case Number: Arb. A. (Comm.) 54/2025
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav