In an important recent development in Bangladesh’s arbitration jurisprudence concerning the scope of Section 7A of the Arbitration Act, 2001 and the availability of interim judicial measures in support of foreign-seated arbitration, The Company Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh took the opportunity to revisit the judicial pronouncements in our jurisdiction on the specific point and provided its clearer position on the issue. Gladius & Co. was able to contribute in this effort through providing legal submission before the Hon’ble Company Bench while protecting the interest of its valued client who was a local shipping agent of a foreign principal. The issue arose in Arbitration Application No. 30 of 2025, before the Hon’ble Company Bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case yet again presented an important question for Bangladesh’s growing engagement with international commercial arbitration: whether Bangladeshi Courts may grant interim measures in support of an arbitration seated outside Bangladesh, particularly where the assets requiring protection are located within Bangladesh.
Background The dispute arose from a series of commercial agreements relating to shipping, logistics and container-related services. The parties had expressly agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration under the SIAC Rules, with Singapore designated as the seat of arbitration and Singapore law governing the arbitration agreement. The arbitration was subsequently commenced before SIAC. However, at the time the application was made, the arbitral tribunal had not yet been fully constituted. The applicant, being a foreign shipping liner principal therefore approached the High Court Division under Section 7A of the Arbitration Act, 2001, seeking interim protection over disputed ISO tank containers situated in Bangladesh. The applicant’s concern was that, before the tribunal became operational, the assets could be disposed of, removed, damaged or otherwise placed beyond effective protection. this situation raised what is commonly described in international arbitration as the “gap period” the period between the commencement of arbitration and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. During this period, urgent measures may sometimes be required to preserve assets, evidence or the subject matter of the dispute.
The Applicant’s Position
The applicant submitted that Section 7A was intended to support arbitration rather than interfere with it. Interim measures, it argued, are protective rather than adjudicatory: they preserve the existing position without determining the substantive rights of the parties. The applicant further argued that, because the tribunal had not yet been constituted, immediate judicial protection was necessary. It relied on principles reflected in the UNCITRAL Model Law and comparative international arbitration practice, where domestic courts may, in appropriate circumstances, provide interim assistance in support of foreign-seated arbitrations. Importantly, the applicant maintained that such assistance would not undermine party autonomy. The parties’ agreement to arbitrate in Singapore would remain fully effective; the Bangladeshi Court would simply preserve the subject matter of the arbitration until the tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction.
The Respondent’s Position The respondent, on the other hand, relied heavily on party autonomy and the parties’ express contractual choices. The parties had selected Singapore as the seat, Singapore law as the governing law of the arbitration agreement, and SIAC as the administering institution. It was therefore argued that allowing Bangladeshi courts to exercise jurisdiction under Section 7A would undermine the agreed arbitral framework. The respondent also relied upon the Larger Bench decision in Accom Travels & Tours Ltd. v. Oman Air SAOC, submitting that due to conflicting decisions being arrived at by different benches of our Hon’ble High Court Division on this point in previous instances, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh constituted a larger Bench to address the specific legal point and through the Judgment in Accom Travels case, such decision was given in our jurisdiction.
The Court’s Analysis
The judgment is particularly significant for the Court’s detailed examination of the purpose of Section 7A. The Court recognised that interim measures are intended to preserve property, evidence, contractual rights and the effectiveness of arbitral proceedings. Such measures do not determine the substantive dispute. Their purpose is to ensure that, when the arbitral tribunal ultimately exercises its jurisdiction, the relief it grants can remain effective. A key conceptual distinction drawn by the Court was between judicial assistance and judicial intervention. Judicial intervention may involve courts encroaching upon matters properly reserved for an arbitral tribunal. Judicial assistance, by contrast, provides limited support necessary to preserve the effectiveness of arbitration. The Court recognised that properly exercised interim judicial assistance does not necessarily conflict with party autonomy. Rather, it can strengthen the parties’ agreement to arbitrate by ensuring that the tribunal is ultimately able to provide meaningful relief. The Court also acknowledged the practical difficulties arising during the gap period. Assets may be transferred, evidence may disappear, or contractual rights may become difficult to enforce before the arbitral tribunal is constituted. The Court’s discussion indicated an appreciation of these commercial realities and of the argument that Section 7A may have been designed, at least in part, to address such circumstances.
Comparative International Perspective
The judgment further considered developments in leading arbitration jurisdictions. The Court noted that arbitration-friendly jurisdictions increasingly recognise the supportive role of domestic courts in preserving the effectiveness of foreign-seated arbitration. This approach reflects a broader international understanding that arbitral tribunals may not always possess effective coercive powers over assets or persons located outside the seat of arbitration. Domestic courts can therefore perform a complementary role by providing limited and temporary protection where necessary. The Judgment further observes that the UNCITRAL Model Law, Singapore, England and India provide useful comparative perspectives. Article 9 of the Model Law recognises that seeking interim measures from a court is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement. Singapore and England similarly provide statutory mechanisms for court-ordered interim measures in support of arbitration, including, subject to statutory requirements, foreign-seated arbitrations. India has also moved towards a more supportive framework through legislative and judicial developments.
These comparative developments demonstrate that judicial assistance and party autonomy need not be viewed as competing principles. Properly defined and limited judicial assistance can operate alongside arbitration while leaving the merits of the dispute exclusively to the arbitral tribunal.
The Decisive Issue: Stare Decisis
Despite its detailed consideration of the applicant’s arguments, the Court ultimately dismissed the application. The decisive issue was not necessarily whether interim judicial assistance was consistent with the objectives of modern arbitration. Rather, it was the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis. The Court held that a Single Bench of the High Court Division is bound by a decision of a Larger Bench. Accordingly, even if the Court considered a broader interpretation of Section 7A to be commercially or legally preferable in light of other judgments which may or may not have been considered at the time of passing of the Larger Bench judgment, it could nevertheless not depart from the binding precedent established in Accom Travels & Tours Ltd. v. Oman Air SAOC. The Court therefore concluded that the Section 7A application in support of the foreign-seated SIAC arbitration was not maintainable. This aspect of the judgment demonstrates the balance between two important considerations: the development of arbitration law in accordance with international commercial realities, and the constitutional requirement of judicial consistency and hierarchy.
Significance of the Decision
Although the application was dismissed, the reasoning of the Court may ultimately prove more significant than the immediate outcome. First, the judgment expressly recognises that interim judicial assistance can support rather than undermine arbitration. Secondly, it acknowledges the practical importance of protecting assets during the period before an arbitral tribunal becomes fully operational. Thirdly, it demonstrates judicial awareness of international arbitration practice and the approaches adopted in other leading jurisdictions. At the same time, the decision reinforces the importance of precedent within Bangladesh’s constitutional framework. The Court’s inability to depart from the Larger Bench authority illustrates that meaningful development of this area of law may require reconsideration by a Bench of appropriate strength or legislative intervention.
The judgment highlights a potential area for clarification within Bangladesh’s arbitration framework. Section 7A could, in the future, be clarified to expressly address interim measures in support of foreign-seated arbitrations, particularly where the relevant assets are located in Bangladesh. Any such framework could preserve the parties’ choice of arbitral seat while permitting limited judicial assistance where genuinely necessary, where assets are located within Bangladesh, and where the court is not asked to determine the substantive dispute. Greater clarity in this area would have broader commercial significance. Investors and international businesses place considerable importance on the predictability and effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms. Uncertainty concerning the ability to preserve assets located in Bangladesh may affect commercial risk assessments, while a clear and arbitration-supportive framework could enhance confidence in Bangladesh as a destination for cross-border investment.
For Gladius & Co., this successful outcome marks a significant milestone in our arbitration practice and underscores our commitment to delivering effective, strategic and commercially focused legal solutions. or Gladius & Co., this successful outcome marks a significant milestone in our arbitration practice and underscores our commitment to delivering effective, strategic and commercially focused legal solutions.