BHATIA INTERNATIONAL v. BULK TRADING SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105 held that:

1. In Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105, the Supreme Court controversially held that PART I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (which governs domestic arbitration) APPLIES to FOREIGN-SEATED ARBITRATIONS unless EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY EXCLUDED by the parties. 2. This meant that Indian courts could potentially intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations under Sections 9, 11, 27, 34 of Part I. 3. The decision was widely CRITICIZED as undermining party autonomy and creating uncertainty for international parties choosing India-related arbitration. 4. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. v. KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC., (2012) 9 SCC 552 — Constitution Bench OVERRULED Bhatia: held that PART I does NOT APPLY to foreign-seated arbitrations. 5. BALCO was PROSPECTIVE — applying only to arbitration agreements made AFTER 6 September 2012. 6. The 2015 Amendment legislatively confirmed: Sections 9, 27, 37(1)(a) and 37(3) of Part I apply to foreign-seated arbitrations only by AGREEMENT of the parties; other Part I provisions don't apply. 7. Hence option B is correct. _Source: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Bare Act) + Mediation Act 2023 — Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, (2002) 4 SCC 105 (overruled)_