SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

(Established under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)

Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4) Awarded Category – I by UGC

Program: BA.LLB
Batch: 2017-22
Semester: IX
Course Name: Alternate Dispute Resolution (Clinical Course II)
PRN: 17010125260
Name of the Student: Adrianna Lillyan Thangkhiew

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mention your details only in the space provided above. If any other details
name, contact detail etc. are written anywhere else in the answer script it will
be treated as adoption of unfair means.
2. Use diagrams and sketches wherever required.
3. Submission must be done by the student through google form link provided
by the examination department and all submissions must be in the word
format only(.doc/.docx). Submission of any other format will not accepted.
4. Submission will not be accepted beyond the deadline given by the
examination department in each subject. Student will be marked absent in
case of late submission.
5. Formatting guidelines: Font size & name: 12 & Times New Roman; Line
spacing 1.5; Justified; Page size: A4; No borders
6. Write your answer in your own language and do not copy paste from any
source. Read the question carefully and write your answer fulfilling the
requirements of the question.
7. If the students copy from each other’s assignment, it will be considered as
unfair means case and performance will be treated as null and void for the
entire examination.
Q. 1. “Conciliation takes its central stage with an understanding of both the parties, while
arbitration interplays between the parties’ actions.”

Explain the statement and also analyze in detail the legal framework for conciliation in India.

Arbitration is a process in which disputes between parties are resolved by appointing an

arbitrator, who is an independent third party who is impartial and neutral. Before reaching a
decision on their dispute, the arbitrator will listen to both parties. Whereas, conciliation is a
process in which disputes between parties are resolved by appointing a conciliator who
assists the disputed parties in reaching a negotiated settlement. It is an informal process for
resolving a dispute without resorting to litigation. He accomplishes this by reducing tensions,
improving communication, interpreting issues, and providing technical assistance.

Arbitration has been shown to be effective in resolving labour-management disputes.

Arbitration is established by the parties themselves, and the decision is acceptable to them.
The arbitrator’s decision is accompanied by a written opinion outlining the reasons for the
decision.

The primary responsibility of the conciliator is to mediate and advocate for the resolution of
industrial disputes. Furthermore, he/she is in charge of holding conciliatory proceedings,
investigating disputes, and submitting a settlement report to the AG (Appropriate
Government).

The main difference between Arbitration and Conciliation is that, arbitration is a method of
resolving industrial disputes in which management and labour present their respective
positions to a neutral third party, who makes and imposes a decision. While, conciliation is a
method of dispute resolution in which an independent person meets with the parties jointly
and severally and assists them in reaching a negotiated settlement or resolving their
differences.

Arbitration requires a prior agreement between parties known as arbitration agreement, which
must be in writing. As against this, the process of conciliation doesn’t require any prior
agreement.

The arbitrator’s decision is acceptable to the parties involved. The conciliator, on the other
hand, does not have the authority to enforce his decision. Furthermore, arbitration is available
for the current and future disputes whereas the conciliation can be adopted for existing
disputes only.

Arbitration is similar to a judicial hearing in that it employs witnesses, evidence, cross-

examination, transcripts, and legal counsel. Conciliation, on the other hand, is an informal
method of resolving problems between management and labour.

Industrial disputes are nothing more than disagreements and confrontations between the
employer and the organization's employees. It can occur as a result of unjust labour practises,
wage demands, political meddling, labour regulations, and other factors. The two methods
that have been differentiated above are forms of alternative dispute resolution, which are used
to settle disagreements amicably and peacefully outside of court. One can select either of
these two approaches based on the preferences and needs of their issue.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (“the Act”) is modelled after the UNCITRAL
Model Law on international commercial arbitration and conciliation. While the Act did not
seek to replace the judicial system, it did bring in a new era of private arbitration and
conciliation. It was also the first time in India that comprehensive legislation on the issue of
conciliation was enacted.

The Act does not define the term “conciliation.” Conciliation, on the other hand, is a
confidential, voluntary, and private dispute resolution procedure in which a neutral individual
assists the parties in reaching a negotiated settlement.

This method provides the disputing parties with an opportunity to explore options aided by an
objective third party to exhaustively determine if a settlement is possible. Like arbitration, the
Act covers both domestic and international disputes in the context of conciliation.
International conciliation is confined only to disputes of commercial nature. As per the Act,
the definition of international commercial conciliation is exactly similar to that of
international commercial arbitration.

The procedure outlined in Part III of the Act is guided by the following broad principles:

1. non-adversary nature of conciliation proceedings – there is no claimant or plaintiff in

conciliation proceedings,
2. voluntary nature of proceedings – any party can initiate and terminate proceedings,
3. flexible procedure – the conciliator has the discretion to adopt any procedural law to
ensure speedy and inexpensive conduct of proceedings, and
 4. decisions are recommendatory – disputes are settled by mutual agreement rather than
imposed decisions.

According to Section 80 of the Act, the conciliator does not decide for the parties, but strives
to assist them in generating options in order to find a solution that is compatible for both of
them, thus fulfilling the mandate of Section 67 of the Act, which states that the conciliator’s
main function is to assist the parties in reaching an amicable settlement.

To do this, a conciliator must act independently and impartially, and adhere to the values of
objectivity, fairness, and justice.  Section 67(4) expressly allows the conciliator to offer
options for dispute resolution at any point of the conciliation procedures.

Conciliation as an alternative dispute resolution method in the Act is unquestionably a

positive step toward encouraging parties to use it. Given the time, effort, and money involved
in bringing issues before a court or an arbitrator in India, conciliation should be the ideal
method for resolving conflicts, particularly those of a commercial nature.
Q. 2. A and B agreed to enter into business relationship and mention in their contract that
future disputes will not be subjected to litigation but alternative disputes resolution
mechanism, preferably arbitration. They decided to reduce the specific agreement in writing
when the dispute actually arises in future.

a) Is there a valid arbitration agreement between them?

b) What will be the legal position if they write an arbitration agreement but confer the power
of appointment of arbitrator upon C who is not a party to the agreement?

Answer the questions by analyzing the legal provisions and judicial precedents.

The arbitration agreement between A and B is a valid agreement. The essentials of an

arbitration agreement under section 7 of the Act are:

1. Only after a disagreement or dispute has occurred will the agreement be deemed
genuine. The existence of a dispute between the parties is a necessary condition for
the contract to be fulfilled. When the parties have previously settled the matter, they
may not use the arbitration clause to challenge the settlement.
2. An agreement related to the arbitration must always be in writing. An arbitration
agreement will be considered as a written agreement when:
 It is in the form of a document and has been signed by both parties.
 It can be the exchange of telex, letters, telegrams, or any other kind of
communication that provides a record of the exchange as well as the
agreement to arbitrate.
 There must be an exchange of statements between the parties that provides the
statement of claim and defence and in which the existence of the arbitration
agreement is agreed upon by one of the parties but is not defined by the other.
3. The goal of the parties while drafting the contract is critical, and it serves as the
foundation of the agreement. There have been no mandatory citations of phrases such
as “arbitrator” or “arbitration” in the agreement. As a result, it is critical to recognise
that the intent of both parties is critical in such an agreement. However, even if the
words are not expressed, the intention must demonstrate that both parties have agreed
to come to terms with the Arbitration Agreement.
4. The signatures of the parties are required to form an arbitration agreement. The
signature can take the form of a document signed by both parties to the contract that
 includes all of the terms and conditions, or it can take the form of a document signed
by only one party to the contract that includes the terms and acceptance by the other
party to the contract. It will enough if one party signs the agreement and the other
party acknowledges that signature.

In the case of K.K Modi v. K.N Modi and Ors., it was held by the Supreme Court that the
following elements must be present in an arbitration agreement. The agreement must
stipulate that the tribunal’s ruling is binding on both parties. That the tribunal’s
jurisdiction over the parties’ rights be decided consensually by both parties or by an order
obtained by the Court stating that the procedure be conducted through arbitration.

The tribunal has the authority to determine the rights of the parties in a fair and just
manner. The agreement to bring the dispute to the tribunal must be legally binding. The
agreement must indicate that any judgement reached by the tribunal on the issue must be
made before the reference is made.

In the second part of the answer, the appointment of arbitrators is addressed under Section
11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. Unless the parties declare a contrary
purpose, an arbitrator of any nationality may be appointed. The parties have the option of
agreeing on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators. If the parties fail to
appoint three arbitrators, each shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators shall
appoint the third. As a result, three arbitrators must be appointed, with the third serving as
the presiding arbitrator.

If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the third arbitrator within thirty
days of receiving a request to do so from the other party, or if two appointed arbitrators
fail to agree on the third arbitrator within 30 days of their appointment, the appointment
shall be made by the Chief Justice of the High Court or any person or institution
designated by him, upon a party’s request.

In the absence of any procedure for appointing a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree
on the arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of a request by one party from the other party to
do so, the appointment shall be made at the request of a party by the Chief Justice of the
High Court or any person or institution designated by him. Where, under an agreed-upon
appointment procedure, a party fails to act as needed by that procedure; or, the parties or
two chosen arbitrators fail to achieve an agreement as required by that method; or, if a
person, including an institution, fails to perform any function as required by that
procedure, a party may request that the Chief Justice of the High Court, or any person or
institution designated by him, take the necessary measures to secure the appointment in
the absence of an agreement for other means of securing the appointment.

Two considerations must be made in such an appointment:

1. The arbitrator must have the requirements specified in the parties’ agreement, and
he or she must be an independent and impartial individual.
2. These are the conditions in which a High Court Chief Justice may make an
appointment.

When a there is a sole or third arbitrator appointed in international commercial

arbitration, the appointing authority is the Chief Justice of India or a person or institution
recognised by him.

In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Indo Swiss S. Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd., it has
been held that no retired High Court Judge can be appointed as an arbitrator by the court
when the arbitration clause states categorically that the difference/dispute shall be
referred to an arbitrator by the Chairman and Managing Director of IPDL who is the
appellant in this case.

Because of his specific understanding of the subject matter at issue, the arbitrator should
be carefully selected. He must be able to keep the environment before the tribunal calm,
be free of forensic eloquence, and ensure that the evidence is presented in the way typical
in a court of law and equity. He must pay close attention to the facts in dispute, and his
judgement must be practical, unbiased, and in the best interests of justice, good
conscience, and equity.

Hence, in this case, C can appoint an arbitrator for the two parties as long as the parties
have agreed to it and if the arbitrator that has been appointed fulfils the requirements
specified in the parties’ agreement.
Q.3. “E-Lok Adalat can serve as one of the greatest tools for dissemination and
disinfection of administration of justice in India.” Explain the statement and analyze the
development of E-Lok Adalat in India. Substantiate your analysis with recent legal
developments.

Alternative Dispute Resolution has long been a part of Indian history. The concept of Lok
Adalat (People’s Court), like the zero, is a unique Indian addition to world law. Lok-
Adalat, as one of the alternative dispute settlement processes, is important in modern
times. For the last two decades, the institution has been growing day by day. The
institution of Lok Adalat in India, as the name implies, is a People’s Court.

Lok Adalat is a judicial organisation established by the people for social justice, and it
settles disputes by negotiation, arbitration, or conciliation. It is a conflict resolution
organisation. Lok Adalats are not a replacement for established courts. They are solely
meant to supplement the courts. It is a judicial institution created by the people for the
sake of social justice. In this regard, the traditional system of justice is insufficient for the
greater society interest and for people devoted to peace and seeking speedy, inexpensive,
and less complex resolution of their problems. In fact, the Lok Adalat is a blessing to the
litigant public, as it allows them to have their problems resolved quickly and without any
charge.

The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 provided Lok Adalats statutory standing, in
accordance with the Constitutional requirement in Article 39A of the Indian Constitution.
It has a number of provisions for resolving disputes through Lok Adalat. As a result, the
old concept of Lok Adalat now has a statutory foundation. It is an Act to establish legal
services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of
society in order to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any
citizen due to economic or other disabilities, and to organise Lok Adalats to ensure that
the legal system operates in a way that promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.

The Lok Adalat’s purpose was and is to provide a supplement to the mainstream judicial
system. The need of convening Lok Adalat or people’s court stems from rising
unhappiness with the present legal system and the necessity for urgent redress for the
impoverished, helpless, economically and socially disadvantaged, and others who are in
distressing familiar conditions.
The notion of e-Lok Adalat has the potential to revolutionise India’s legal environment by
providing a platform for millions of individuals to resolve their issues in their own
communities. During the upheaval produced by the covid-19 outbreak, Legal Services
Authorities around the country creatively responded to the new normal and switched Lok
Adalat to a digital platform.

The global pandemic has radically altered the way legal services institutions operate. To
improve access to justice in the face of the limits imposed by Covid-19 and other public
health recommendations, legal services authorities have cleverly blended technology into
their traditional ways of justice delivery.

Online Lok Adalat, also known as e-Lok Adalat, is a judiciary innovation in which
technology has been utilised to its full potential and has become a platform for delivering
justice to people’s doorsteps. According to the government, the e-Lok Adalats are also
cost effective because they eliminate the need for organisational expenses.

Lok Adalats (state and national) are an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in
which pre-litigation and pending disputes in the courts are settled amicably without any
cost to the litigants. They are organised by Legal Services Authorities. It is a free and
efficient technique of bringing litigating parties together and rescuing them from the
rigours of trial under the adversarial system of adjudication, which is widely believed to
be time consuming, complex, and costly. They are also instrumental in reducing the
burden on arrears of the court disposal of long pending litigation between the parties.
Q.4. A and B, business partner, agree to arbitrate the dispute and appoints an arbitrator for
the same. Award is passed in a foreign country ‘XYZ’ and A, Indian national, seeks its
enforcement in India to which B, foreign national, objects on the ground that it is not a
foreign arbitral award as both the parties need to have foreign nationality for a foreign
award and thus not enforceable in India.

Advise A in the following context

a) What is ‘Foreign Arbitral Award’?

b) How is it governed by the Indian law on arbitration?

c) Can arbitration in the present case be considered as International Commercial

Arbitration?

Substantiate your advice with analysis of legal provisions and judicial precedents.

a) Section 44 of the Act defines a “foreign award” as an arbitral award on differences

between people originating from legal connections, whether contractual or not, that
are deemed commercial under Indian law. The Section also states that the
aforementioned provisions must be carried out in accordance with a written
agreement for arbitration to which the Convention set forth in the First Schedule
applies, and in one of the territories that the Central Government, upon being satisfied
that reciprocal provisions have been made, may declare to be territories to which the
said Convention applies by notification in the Official Gazette.

Arbitration is preferred by parties in international commerce and business as an

agreeable means of resolving disputes rather to the lengthy litigation process. The
rights derived from the arbitral award can be of various types and may be necessary to
be enforced in other countries, depending on where the right derived from the arbitral
judgement sits.
A domestic award is the result of domestic arbitration and is limited to the territory of
India. The parties must have a relation or be of Indian heritage in order to be eligible.
An award made by an arbitral institution in India, or even by a foreign state, for a case
in which both parties are of Indian origin and the nationality is also controlled by
Indian laws, falls under the jurisdiction of domestic arbitration.
 Therefore, a foreign award is an arbitral award which relates to differences relating to
the matters considered as commercial under the law in force in India and it’s a result
of foreign arbitration.

b) India is a signatory to both the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) and the Geneva Convention on
the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1927). If a party gets a binding award from
a country that is a signatory to the New York Convention or the Geneva Convention,
and the award is made in a territory that India has notified as a convention country,
the award is enforceable in India.

According to section 46 of the Act, it states that “Any foreign award which would be
enforceable under Chapter I of Part II shall be treated as binding for all purposes on
the persons as between whom it was made, and may accordingly be relied on by any
of those persons by way of defence, set off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in
India and any references in this Chapter to enforcing a foreign award shall be
construed as including references to relying on an award.”

When a party seeks the enforcement of a foreign award under Section 47 of the Act,
they must provide the following papers to the court together with their application:
the original award or a duplicate of it, duly authenticated in the way required by the
legislation of the country where it was made; the original agreement for arbitration or
a duly certified copy of it; and such evidence as may be required to demonstrate that
the prize is a foreign award.
It further states that the application must be filed in the court where the award's
subject matter is located. The subject matter of an award can be of any character,
including evidence as specified in Section 47 or any other relief that may emerge
during the course of Arbitration procedures. For example, if the subject of an
international arbitration is a licencing agreement between the parties, and the award
provides certain other reliefs related to either party’s intellectual property in another
country where neither party has any actionable assets or claims pending, it may be
necessary to enforce the foreign arbitral award in that third country. It can be stated
that a judgement debtor’s right/relief conferred by a foreign arbitral award cannot be
exercised in a third nation until such foreign award is enforced in that country. Once
 such foreign award is enforced in such country, it becomes the decree of such court,
and the rights given by such decree are enforceable.

In Wireless Developers Inc v. India games Limited, the Court held that, if the party
has a foreign award in its favor it can seek to enforce the award in any part of the
country where it is sought to be enforced as long as money is available or suit for
recovery of money can be filed.

In the case of Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia, Bermuda v. Orient Middle

East Lines Limited, Saudi Arabia & Ors., the Supreme Court believed that the
parties' arbitration should take place in a neutral forum. The parties' assets may not be
subject to the jurisdiction of such a neutral forum. As a result, the award cannot be
enforced there. Instead, the award must be enforced in the country where the
judgement debtor's assets are located. As a result, it is claimed that foreign awards
must be recognised and enforceable internationally, and the location of such
enforcement would not be decided by the parties, but would be determined by the
facts of each individual case.

Hence, it can be inferred that the territorial jurisdiction for enforcement of a Foreign
Award can be understood by referring to the place where the right as conferred by the
Award accrues.

c) International commercial arbitration is a method of settling disputes that arise from

international commercial contracts. It is used as an alternative to litigation and is
generally governed by the terms previously agreed upon by the contracting parties,
rather than national legislation or procedural regulations. Most contracts include a
clause stating that any disputes arising from the contract will be resolved through
arbitration rather than litigation. At the time of the contract, the parties might define
the forum, procedural procedures, and controlling legislation.

Arbitration can take two forms: “institutional” or “ad hoc.” The type of arbitration
will be determined by the contract provisions. It is institutional arbitration if the
parties have agreed to have the dispute adjudicated by an arbitral institution. Ad hoc
arbitration occurs when the parties establish their own rules for arbitration. Ad hoc
arbitrations are handled independently by the parties, who decide on the forum, the
number of arbitrators, the method to be followed, and all other aspects of the
arbitration’s administration.
International treaties and national laws, both procedural and substantive, are used in
arbitration, as are the procedural norms of the applicable arbitral tribunal. Previous
arbitral awards are compelling, but they are not binding.
In this case, it can be referred to as an International Commercial Arbitration as the
matter falls under this form of dispute.
Q.6. Short Notes

a) Judicial intervention and Arbitration

Section 5 of Arbitration And Concilliation Act, 1996, states that, “Notwithstanding

anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed
by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this
Part.”
In general, the Court of Other Judicial Authority does not intervene in arbitration
processes or awards. The law of non-intervention is based on the idea that when
parties to a commercial contract have agreed to resolve their issues through mediation
and conciliation through the process of arbitration, the judiciary has no cause to
intervene in this arbitration case. Section 8 of the act provides that if an Arbitration
Agreement exits between the parties, the judicial courts, shall at first instant, refer any
matter brought before them, for consideration through arbitration.

However, the courts have the authority to hear any dispute if they believe that there is
no legitimate arbitration agreement between the parties. In this scenario, any of the
parties may file an application with the court, accompanied by the Original
Arbitration Agreement or a properly certified copy of the Agreement.
The act empowers the court to entertain all such applications for intervention in
matters of arbitration, where the court is satisfied that the applying party does not
possess a copy of the Arbitration Agreement and will not be able to obtain one in the
ordinary course, through the process of arbitration, then it has the power to intervene
and give appropriate direction, on the prayer of one party to the other party, to
produce the Original Arbitration Agreement. However, the court’s minor action in
instructing the opposing party to provide the original Arbitration Agreement or a
certified true copy before the court does not preclude the parties from referring the
dispute to arbitration.
Our Judicial System has been burdened with crores of cases pending for justice. The
Judicial Proceedings in India are a lengthy proceeding, it takes a lot of time and
money. We know that for better business environment and for development, we
require speedy dispute resolution system.
 Arbitration is one of the most effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures;
parties to an Arbitration Agreement refer all issues to arbitration for resolution. For an
arbitration process, there should be an Arbitration Agreement or an Arbitration Clause
in the main contract that explicitly states that any disputes will be directed to
arbitration if any of the terms and conditions of the main agreement are violated.
Arbitrators will be appointed by the parties to the agreement, and their decisions will
be binding on both parties and enforceable in a court of law. However, in some cases,
when there is obvious injustice to one party, the award is against public policy, the
arbitration agreement is not implemented properly, or one party suffers more than the
other as a result of the award, a competent court may intervene and set aside the
Arbitration Award.

b) ADR and Online Dispute

Time is limitless and priceless. Every step forward in technical improvement is tied to
saving time in some way. If advances cannot save time, they are not advancements.
The Indian Judiciary today has about 4 crore pending cases; unravelling this large
number of cases is beyond not only the competence of the Indian Judiciary, but every
single existing organisation in the globe. In this post, we will look at Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), how they might
help you, and whether they are available in India.

Online Dispute Resolution is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to

solve the disputes among the disputants. ODR also uses same methods as used in that
is negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. It is a clear fact to be considered that ODR
is alternative to Alternative dispute resolution, ODR is considered much easier going.
One of the biggest benefits of ODR is it promotes newly developed technology
Artificial intelligence in legal industry which will somewhere help us to reduce
caseload.
In today’s world, as technology, particularly artificial intelligence, advances, we are
continuously looking for methods to make things easier and more user-friendly. Aside
from that, the primary goal is to provide time and money saving services. And ODR is
a prime example of this, since India has over 3.56 million unresolved cases, which
can take more than 2-3 years to resolve, affecting not only the disputants but also the
firm, small workers, and stakeholders. Without a doubt, it also relieves a significant
amount of load on the judiciary.
Many contracts contain an arbitration or clause. Which says that if any kind of dispute
occurs it will be resolved through arbitration rather than directly going for litigation.
Litigation is costly and in complex issue evidences are collected which is time taking,
in litigation sometimes company relations destroyed, whereas through or ODR
disputes are resolved peacefully and comparatively less time taking.

ODR is not a new concept in India; it predates the Arbitration Act of 1940. To change
the shape of the Indian legal system, the basic traditional law i.e. Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 was amended and Sec 89 was introduced in Code of Civil Procedure,
Sec 89(1) allows us to solve disputes outside the courtroom, Considering the process
of Indian judiciary which is extremely slow, there has been a great emphasis on
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Arbitration and mediation are always preferable to litigation because they resolve
disputes in a more peaceful manner and do not jeopardise the lives of company
employees. ODR can also be referred to as the greatest breakthrough for the legal
sector, as lowering time each case has been a major concern, and ODR will be the
solution to this.
Q.5. A and B entered into an agreement which contained a clause that any dispute which may
arise out of their relationship will be governed by UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration and the place of arbitration shall be Singapore unless parties decide
otherwise as per their convenience. A plans to dispose of the property which is a valuable
asset for their contractual relationship. B applies for interim relief before the court in Delhi
for restraining A. A objects to such application by stating that by choosing Singapore as place
of arbitration, parties have in fact chosen it as seat of arbitration itself and so Indian courts
have no jurisdiction over the matter.

Decide the maintainability of the application in light of following,

a) Whether Venue, Place and Seat of arbitration are different?

b) What is the test to determine the law applicable to the arbitration?

c) Can Indian courts entertain an application for interim relief in the present case?

Substantiate your answer with legal provisions and judicial precedents.

a) Whether Venue, Place and Seat of arbitration are different?

At the outset, it should be noted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996
does not use the terms “seat” or “venue” of arbitration and only uses the term “place”
of arbitration in the sense of “juridical seat.” Section 20 of the Arbitration Act
contains the applicable statutory provision, which reads as follows:

(1) “The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration.

(2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (1), the place of arbitration shall
be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the
case, including the convenience of the parties.

(3) Notwithstanding sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the arbitral tribunal may,
unless otherwise agreed by the parties, meet at any place it considers appropriate
for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties,
or for inspection of documents, goods or other property.”
Although the distinction between the ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration is well
recognized in international commercial arbitration, imprecise drafting of arbitration
agreements may obscure this difference.
In Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc., it had provided
the contrary view was declared as bad law, as it does not follow the “Shashoua
Principle” which was considered in BALCO case. Furthermore, it was held that if the
seat as well as venue are not set out by the parties or the arbitrators then the court
where the earliest application for interim relief has been made under section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and where part of cause of action may have
arisen, will have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.