Authored By- Tanishq Malhotra
I. Introduction
Arbitration has long been praised as a quicker, more accessible, and discreet way to get out of the conflict, providing business with a big advantage in the context of the commercial dispute wherein judicial delays can ruin a business. However, arbitration has been forced to be creative to suit the realities of a rapid problem. Emergency arbitration is a fast-track dispute resolution process that allows parties to obtain urgent, temporary relief such as injunctions or orders to preserve assets before a full arbitral tribunal is formally constituted. Unlike court-granted interim relief, which often involves delays due to judicial backlogs, emergency arbitration is conducted by an appointed emergency arbitrator, usually within days, ensuring quick protection of rights and preventing irreparable harm.
It is especially useful in high-stakes commercial disputes, offering businesses speed and confidentiality while reinforcing party autonomy under agreed institutional rules, or even expedited arbitration where procedures are accelerated to result in a relatively quick solution to the disagreement. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) are other internationally recognized arbitral institutions that have introduced this within their system and in doing so offer remedies within days rather than months. This velocity has helped the companies that must act and operate in transboundary spaces as regards the protection of the contractual rights and their business interests.
The case is more mixed in India, however. It lacked certainty as to whether emergency arbitrations could be enforced in India as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, on the UNCITRAL framework, did not mention emergency arbitration. Earlier decisions were a reflection of this gap including the case of Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2020)1 Later the Court decided not to execute the order of an emergency arbitrator, on the ground that Indian law did not provide a concept of such relief. This state of confusion was eradicated by a groundbreaking decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Today, Future Retail Ltd. (2021)2. By enforcing a SIAC emergency arbitrator’s order restraining Future Retail from proceeding with its proposed ₹24,713 crore transaction with Reliance, the Court affirmed that parties opting for institutional rules are bound by them, including provisions for emergency arbitration. This judgment was widely hailed as a step towards aligning India with global arbitration standards, strengthening party autonomy, and promoting investor confidence.
Yet, the ruling also exposes a fundamental tension in arbitration’s identity. While emergency arbitration promises efficiency, its accessibility in India is largely limited to resource-rich corporates capable of affording international institutional arbitration. For example, while Amazon could readily invoke SIAC’s emergency framework, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) remain dependent on slow-moving domestic courts due to prohibitive institutional costs. Despite the Supreme Court’s recognition of emergency arbitration in Amazon v. Future Retail as a positive step, critics caution that “while Indian courts have been receptive … it is necessary to re-examine the practicality behind the enforceability of the order passed by emergency arbitrators as per the provisions of the Act.” This concern is especially relevant given that “Section 17 of the Act does not provide for direct enforcement of any foreign-seated arbitral tribunal’s interim order, regardless of its nature.” The critique of the Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, starkly warns that the absence of clarity in enforcement, “resorting to an ‘emergency’ arbitration would be counter-productive, resulting in the loss of additional time, resources, and efforts.”3
1 Ashwani Minda & Anr. v. U-Shin Ltd. & Ors., OMP (COMM.) 920/2020, Delhi High Court
2 Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., Civ. App. Nos. 4492–4497 of 2021, India, Supreme Court, judgment delivered August 6, 2021.
3 Aakanksha Jadhav & Mustafa Rajkotwala, Future-Amazon Case and the Bumpy Road to Emergency Arbitrations in India, IndiaCorpLaw (Jan. 5, 2021),
Thus, the Amazon judgment is both a milestone and a mirror, reflecting arbitration’s broader identity crisis in India: is it genuinely evolving towards efficiency, or is it entrenching itself as a mechanism primarily for corporate elites?
II. The Legal Evolution of Emergency Arbitration
Emergency arbitration arose in response to a procedural gap: traditional arbitration did not permit interim relief until a tribunal constituted a process that could take weeks or months. Thus, urgent applications often had to be directed to domestic courts, compromising both efficiency and party autonomy.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 in India (based on the UNCITRAL Model Law) gave the tribunal discretion to issue interim relief under Section 17. The Law Commission (246th Report, 2014) had recommended explicit provisions on emergency arbitrators but the changes have not been enacted in the 2015 and 2019 amendments. That is why the legality of emergency arbitration was rather debatable during a significant period of time4 5.
III. Amazon v. Future Retail: A Turning Point
The issue between Amazon and Future Group was centered on the fact that Amazon had invested 1,431 crores in Future Coupons and because of this, Amazon had contractual first rights over future retail asset transfer. In 2020, when Future Retail tried to sell its holdings to Reliance; Amazon used emergency arbitration at the SIAC. The emergency arbitrator blocked the deal with an injunction on October 25, 20206.
Future Retail appealed to the validity of such award in the Indian jurisdiction, claiming that there was no arbitration agreement between Amazon and Future Retail itself in the Indian jurisdiction and that the demand of Future Retail was to be arbitral against Amazon pursuant to an arbitration agreement between Amazon and Future Retail. Therefore, the dispute could not be arbitrated by emergency arbitrators in the Indian jurisdiction, as Indian law did not recognise emergency arbitrators at all; and in any event, applying Indian law, there was no arbitration agreement between Future Retail and Amazon pursuant to which any emergency arbitral determination could be made.
4Amazon.Com Nv Investment Holdings Llc vs Future Retail Limited AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3723
5 https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/amazon-future-retail-reliance-7461671
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_vs._Reliance_Group
In August 2021, the Supreme Court, through a division bench of Justices Nariman and Gavai, upheld the enforceability of the emergency arbitrator’s order. It ruled that:
- Institutional rules, such as SIAC’s, become binding when parties agree to them, including emergency arbitration provisions.
- The term “arbitral proceedings” in Section 17(1) is expansive enough to include emergency arbitration.
- Based on this, as emergency arbitrator awards are seen to be a form of interim measures, then they may be enforced under Section 17(2). The court highlighted that party autonomy is part of the fundamentals of arbitration8.
It was made clear by the court that no party can enter into an EA proceeding with an agreed institutional rule and go ahead to claim an award of this type to be of no effect.
This case law has brought praise as being a landmark and it confirms that India has moved towards being an arbitration-friendly nation and in line with the international standards.
IV. Efficiency Gains and Global Alignment
The Amazon v. Supreme Court case gave endorsement to emergency arbitration. The Future Retail case was a major step towards efficiency in the system of arbitration in India. The Court’s ruling to maintain the enforceability of emergency awards can help parties get expedient interim relief without having to wait for a tribunal to be formed or have to access India’s courts which are ridden with backlogs. In business cases especially those cases which involve a high-value transaction, intellectual property rights, or a rapidly changing retail marketplace- the delays can make remedies irrelevant. The process of emergency arbitration is used when one needs immediate protection against irreparable harm, including asset dissipation, hostile takeovers, or the canceling of key contracts.9
7 Harsh Shrivastav, Amazon vs. Future Retail: A Long Tussle, Legal Service India (2021), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8176-amazon-vs-future-retail-a-long-tussle.html.
8 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/635fa452edf5b3524f1c9b09
9 Amazon.com NV Inv. Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 409 (India).
This is not a mere efficiency in the process but one that strengthens the commercial situation in India. Companies involved in international business enterprises need robust mechanisms of dispute resolution that are decisive and effective in protecting investment. By categorizing emergency awards as binding, the Court has aligned Indian practice with the prevailing international position, where emergency awards have long been recognized as having binding effect.10 Institutions such as SIAC, LCIA, and ICC have effectively launched emergency arbitration as an option of preference by a corporation encountering an emergency dispute, and the recognition in India demonstrates that it is willing to compete at that platform. The decision therefore increases the esteem of India as a pro-arbitration state, a feature imperative to securing the foreign direct investment.
Equally important is the contrast the decision draws with India’s earlier reputation for judicial intervention. In ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003), the Supreme Court controversially expanded the scope of judicial review under the “public policy” ground, leading to fears of unpredictability and overreach in arbitration proceedings.11 Such decisions had historically dissuaded foreign parties from choosing India as a seat of arbitration. By contrast, Amazon v. Future Retail reflects a conscious shift toward judicial restraint and deference to party autonomy. The judgment not only emphasizes India’s commitment to the principles of the New York Convention but also reassures global investors that arbitration agreements and awards including emergency ones will be respected rather than re-litigated in Indian courts.12
Taken together, these developments highlight a transformative moment for Indian arbitration. Emergency arbitration, once dismissed as an uncertain and inaccessible tool, now stands as a mechanism that can deliver real-time relief and project India as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The challenge, however, remains ensuring that this efficiency is not monopolized by elite corporations but gradually extended to benefit a wider range of domestic actors.
10 See Singapore International Arbitration Act, 1994 (Cap. 143A) (recognizing emergency arbitrators); Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609.
11 Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 (India)
12 Aakanksha Jadhav & Mustafa Rajkotwala, Future-Amazon Case and the Bumpy Road to Emergency Arbitrations in India, IndiaCorpLaw (Jan. 5, 2021),
V. The Problem of Elitism
Despite its clear benefits, emergency arbitration’s application in India currently remains elitist. It is available mainly through international forums like SIAC or ICC, which involve significant fees far beyond the reach of many SMEs. Consequently, expedited justice is effectively reserved for large, resource-endowed corporations.
Domestic institutions such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) have yet to offer equally effective and affordable emergency arbitration services, limiting access for smaller parties.
Additionally, enforcement still requires judicial support. While the Supreme Court recognized emergency awards, litigating enforcement remains costly and procedurally cumbersome again disproportionately disadvantaging less resourceful parties.
VI. Real-Time Examples & Broader Impacts
In the larger Amazon–Future–Reliance saga, Future Retail’s admission to insolvency proceedings and eventual 2024 liquidation further complicated the arbitration landscape. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Reliance began seizing control of Future stores in early 2022, sparking new legal friction underscoring the fact that emergency arbitration may not halt systemic power shifts in favor of stronger entities.
VII. Striking a Balance: The Way Forward
For emergency arbitration to shed its “elite” tag and evolve into a truly accessible and efficient mechanism in India, several reforms are urgently needed.
Legislative Clarity. Although the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 takes a leap in many ways, it does not explicitly acknowledge the process of emergency arbitration. In Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated: This is a gap that was temporarily filled by Future Retail where the emergency grants would be treated as
enforceable under Section 17 of the Act.13 Nevertheless, the fact that there is no explicit statutory law leaves some doubts. According to researchers, clarity in laws is necessary to avert disintegration in the interpretation of the laws by the judges. Experience elsewhere, in jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong where emergency arbitration has been built into domestic law, can be drawn on in order to afford such certainty and predictability.
Domestic Institutional Strengthening. Presently, emergency arbitration in India is largely facilitated by foreign arbitral institutions such as SIAC or LCIA platforms that, while efficient, are prohibitively expensive for many domestic parties. There are also increased opportunities to increase the strength of the Indian institutions like the Mumbai Centre of International Arbitration (MCIA) or the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) which could be of lower cost and low access.14 For example, MCIA has already experimented with reduced fee structures and case management systems, but awareness and trust remain limited. If bolstered by government and industry support, these centers could ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are not priced out of interim remedies.
Technology Adoption. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that hearings, filings, and even cross-examinations can be conducted seamlessly through virtual platforms. If arbitral institutions institutionalize e-filings, virtual hearings, and AI-assisted case management, the costs of emergency arbitration can be substantially reduced. This not only accelerates timelines but also democratizes access by allowing parties from smaller cities and towns to participate without incurring heavy logistical expenses. The pandemic-era judicial embrace of technology where even the Supreme Court functioned through video conferencing shows that digital solutions are feasible at scale.15
Judicial Restraint. Finally, courts have a critical role to play in ensuring that emergency arbitration does not devolve into yet another layer of litigation. While judicial oversight remains
13 Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., Civ. App. Nos. 4492–4497 of 2021 (India, Supreme Court, Aug. 6, 2021).
14 Aakanksha Jadhav & Mustafa Rajkotwala, Future-Amazon Case and the Bumpy Road to Emergency Arbitrations in India, IndiaCorpLaw (Jan. 5,
2021),https://indiacorplaw.in/2021/01/05/future-amazon-case-and-the-bumpy-road-to-emergency-arbitrations-in-indi a.
15 Harsh Shrivastav, Amazon vs. Future Retail: A Long Tussle, Legal Service India (2021), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8176-amazon-vs-future-retail-a-long-tussle.html.
important to safeguard due process, intervention should be limited to questions of jurisdiction or manifest illegality. In ONGC v. Saw Pipes, the Supreme Court was criticized for expanding judicial review of arbitral awards under the “public policy” ground, which created uncertainty and delay.16 If courts extend such intrusive scrutiny to emergency awards, the efficiency of the mechanism will be severely undermined. Instead, a pro-enforcement stance akin to the approach taken in Amazon v. Future Retail would reinforce party autonomy and strengthen confidence in arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
Collectively, such reforms have the potential to convert the practice of emergency arbitration as a practice confined to large corporations to one that is inclusive. The arbitration regime in India is at a crossroad: it can retain emergency arbitration as a benefit of corporate elites or it can achieve systemic reforms to democratize the benefits of emergency arbitration. Not only would the latter course correct the identity crisis afflicting arbitration, but it will also bring discipline to dispute resolution in India and put them in line with international best practices.
- Conclusion
The Amazon v. The Future Retail paves a path on how India should follow in arbitration practices, which is more aligned with international norms and practices and has definitely increased efficiency and credibility with international stakeholders. By sustaining that emergency arbitration awards are valid, the Supreme Court sent out a very clear message that the Indian courts will abide by the principle of party autonomy and would take a relational stand with the best practices in international dispute resolution. This growth does not only assure the foreign investors but also enhances the view of India as the arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
However, this position does not appear practicable. Emergency arbitration, owing to its elaborate procedural framework, considerable institutional costs, and reliance on foreign-based tribunals, remains a mechanism predominantly employed by large multinational corporations that possess the requisite resources to meaningfully engage with it. Small and medium sized businesses who might well also be in desperate need of ad hoc protection and cover are unable to pay the premiums. Consequently, whereas the mechanism may improve efficiency in the eyes of some, it may also contribute towards entrenching the perception of arbitration as a closed and exclusive system only available to other powerful commercial players.
16 Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 (India).
To really fix the identity crisis of arbitration, however, the way forward must be one that combines efficiency and inclusivity. This needs judicial acceptance as well as clear legislative realization, cost effective institutional structures and awareness measures that will make access to emergency relief a democratic process. When India is able to develop a mechanism in which modern procedural alternatives such as emergency arbitration work in the interests of all parties to the dispute, irrespective of size or financial ability, then arbitration will cease being a luxury available only to the corporate elite and become a truly effective and fair instrument of justice.
