The recent decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Himalayan Flora and Aromas Pvt. Ltd.¹ offers important clarity on the scope and limitations of Emergency Arbitrators under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) Rules, 2023. The dispute arose from an emergency award passed in December 2024, which granted interim protection to theHimalayan Flora and Aromas Pvt. Ltd (“Respondent”). Although such orders are meant to be temporary and time-bound, the Emergency Arbitrator extended the order’s operation beyond the 90-day limit prescribed under Rule 14.13 of the DIAC Rules 2023. This prompted the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“Appellant”) to challenge the extension under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), arguing that the Emergency Arbitrator acted outside the powers granted under the DIAC framework.

The central issue before the Hon’ble Court was whether an Emergency Arbitrator has the authority to extend the validity of their own order beyond 90 days. The Respondent attempted to justify the extension by relying on the broader definition of “Arbitral Tribunal” under Rule 2(c) of the DIAC Rules 2023, contending that an Emergency Arbitrator should be considered part of the same category. However, the Hon’ble Court rejected this interpretation and held that the Rules draw a clear distinction between the Emergency Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court emphasised that Rule 14.13 specifically vests the power to modify, vacate, substitute, or extend the operation of an emergency order solely in the Arbitral Tribunal. Once the Emergency Arbitrator makes the order and completes the 14-day window for issuing it, they become functus officio and cease to have further authority over the dispute unless mutually agreed by the parties. Any interpretation that allows the Emergency Arbitrator to extend the order themselves would undermine the very scheme of emergency arbitration, which is intended to provide urgent but temporary measures until the regular tribunal is constituted.

Given that the Tribunal had not yet been formed and had not modified or extended the emergency order, the Hon’ble Court held that the order automatically ceased to exist after 90 days. Consequently, the extension granted by the Emergency Arbitrator was declared invalid. Recognising, however, that the order had been in force for nearly 11 months, the Court directed maintenance of status quo for seven days to allow the Respondent an opportunity to seek interim protection under Section 9 or Section 17 of the A&C Act before a competent forum.

The ruling provides a crucial reaffirmation of the limited and temporary character of emergency arbitration in India. It reinforces the procedural discipline embedded in the DIAC Rules 2023, by clarifying that emergency relief cannot become a substitute for regular interim measures granted by a duly constituted tribunal. This clarity also aligns Indian institutional practice with international norms, where emergency awards are designed to bridge the gap only until the tribunal assumes jurisdiction. By drawing a firm boundary around the powers of Emergency Arbitrators, the judgment strengthens the integrity of institutional arbitration and ensures that the emergency mechanism remains true to its purpose for the swift, interim, and strictly time-bound relief.

By - Akarsh Pandey and Ayushi Singh