## Facts

- Bharat Aluminum Co. (BALCO), an Indian public-sector company, contracted with Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services Inc., a U.S. company, for equipment and technical services for a plant in India.
- The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration seated in London and governed by English law (often described as under institutional rules).
- A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced in London pursuant to the clause.
- BALCO sought relief from Indian courts under Part I of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including interim and related supervisory remedies.
- Prior Supreme Court decisions (notably *Bhatia International* and *Venture Global*) had been interpreted to extend Part I remedies to foreign-seated arbitrations unless excluded.
- Because of conflicting views on those precedents, the matter was referred through larger benches to a five-judge Constitution Bench to decide the legal question on Part I’s territorial reach.

## Issues

1. Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to arbitrations seated outside India.
2. Whether prior precedent correctly held that Part I applies to foreign-seated arbitrations unless the parties exclude it.
3. Whether Indian courts may grant interim measures, appoint arbitrators, or entertain set-aside challenges for arbitrations with a foreign seat.
4. How “place of arbitration” under the 1996 Act should be construed, including the role of the juridical “seat” versus a mere hearing venue.
5. If prior precedent is overruled, whether the new rule should apply prospectively.

## Decision

- The Constitution Bench held that Part I applies only to arbitrations seated in India.
- For foreign-seated arbitrations, Indian courts lack Part I jurisdiction to grant interim measures, make arbitral appointments, or set aside awards.
- The Court overruled *Bhatia International* and *Venture Global* to the extent they permitted Part I intervention in foreign-seated arbitrations.
- The Court treated the seat as the juridical home of the arbitration that determines supervisory court jurisdiction and curial law.
- The overruling was made prospective: the new rule applies to arbitration agreements executed on or after September 6, 2012; earlier agreements remained governed by the prior regime unless Part I was excluded.

## Legal Principles

- Part I of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is territorially limited to arbitrations with the seat in India.
- Selection of a foreign seat ordinarily entails exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the courts at the seat, restricting intervention by Indian courts during the arbitration.
- Foreign awards are addressed through the statute’s separate enforcement framework (Part II), and Indian courts lack authority to annul a foreign award under Part I set-aside provisions.
- Statutory references to “all arbitrations” within Part I must be read consistently with the territorial trigger that ties Part I’s application to an India seat.
- Prospective overruling may be used to protect reliance interests where parties structured contracts and disputes under an established judicial interpretation.

## Conclusion

The court reset Indian arbitration law to a seat-based territorial model: Indian courts may not apply Part I remedies to foreign-seated arbitrations, and foreign awards are handled through the separate enforcement regime, with the doctrinal shift applied only to post–September 6, 2012 arbitration agreements.


Bharat Aluminum Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Servs., Inc., (2012) 9 S.C.C. 552 (India 2012)