In the case of Madima LLC v. Balasore Alloys Limited, the Calcutta High Court has held that
choosing the foreign law in order to govern the arbitration will not exclude the application of section
9 of the Arbitration Act by itself that allows the party to approach the Indian courts for the purpose
of interim protections or relief. The court also concluded that the term “agreement to the
contrary” that is mentioned in section 2 (2) should be expressed and not be implied. In other words
unless and until the arbitration agreement expressly and clearly excludes the application of section 9,
the provision will apply to the foreign seated arbitration also. In this case, the International Chamber
of Commerce has passed the award in the proceeding that was governed by British law with its
seat of arbitration in London. For securing the award of amount Rs. 22.08 crores Madima moved the
application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act for seeking the protective order so that its dues that
are payable can be secured. The judge has now proceeded to hold the application of Madima for the
interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration Act in respect of the award that was passed by the
London seated arbitration and the matter is posted next on 11th August 2021.