In SVC Jhilmil Residential BD Ltd. v. RAJUK (Arbitration Application No. 07 of 2026) and Legend World Tank PTE v. Multinational Shipping Co. Ltd. and others (Arbitration Application No. 30 of 2025) judgment dated 12.07.2026, Mr. Justice Md. Toufiq Inam considered a question that continues to arise in cross-border disputes: can Bangladeshi courts grant interim protection under section 3 read with section 7A of the Arbitration Act 2001, when the arbitration is seated abroad? The Larger Bench decision in Accom Travels and Tours v. Oman Air SAOC (Accom) holds that they generally cannot, except at the award-enforcement stage.
By distinguishing supervisory jurisdiction (control over the arbitral process, which follows the seat) from supportive jurisdiction (preservation of assets or the status quo, which follows where the property is actually located), the High Court Division observed that Accom appears to have overlooked the Appellate Division’s binding ruling in the case of ECOM Agroindustrial Corp Ltd v. Mosharaf Composite Textile Mills (ECOM), which had already upheld the application of section 7A of the Arbitration Act 2001 in aid of a foreign-seated (Liverpool) arbitration.
The Single Bench High Court Division recognized that supportive judicial intervention in aid of arbitration is conceptually distinct from supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and that such intervention may, in appropriate circumstances, coexist with the principle that supervisory jurisdiction ordinarily follows the arbitral seat. The High Court Division also observed that a harmonious reading of the Arbitration Act 2001 viewed in light of the its legislative history, Preamble and statutory scheme, may reasonably admit of an interpretation whereby interim measures under Section 7A are available in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations in respect of persons or property situated in Bangladesh.
However, despite expressly showing reservations about the conclusion in Accom, the Single Bench High Court Division ultimately followed Accom on the ground that it was bound by the principle of stare decisis, and held that a Single Bench cannot depart from a binding Larger Bench decision and rejected the applications accordingly.
It is important to note that although not expressly cited in the judgments, the Hon’ble High Court Division’s reasoning closely resonates and is borrowed from the analysis contained in the book titled “Commentaries on the Law of Arbitration in Bangladesh with Bilingual Annotations” (January 2024) written by our Managing Partner and Senior Advocate, Junayed Ahmed Chowdhury, which was published more than 2 (two) years before these judgments. From paragraph 3.56 (page 125) of the said book, Mr. Chowdhury sets out the concept of supportive and supervisory jurisdiction while mounting a critical analysis of the decision in Accom.
AstuteHorse