Indian law governing arbitration clause preserved filing of London award and court jurisdiction under the saving provision.

Where a contract expressly subjected all disputes to Indian law, the arbitration clause was treated as governed by the same law absent a clear contrary intention, so an award made in London was not a foreign award merely because of the place of arbitration. Jurisdiction to receive and file the award depended on whether the court could entertain a suit relating to the subject matter; it was sufficient that the respondent carried on business within the Bombay High Court's territorial limits, and prior related proceedings had been filed there. Because the arbitration had commenced before the 1996 Act, the saving provision preserved the filing remedy notwithstanding repeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitration agreement was governed by the law of India so that the award made in London was not a foreign award; (ii) whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to receive and file the award; and (iii) whether the filing remedy survived the repeal and transition to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitration agreement was governed by the law of India so that the award made in London was not a foreign award.

Analysis: The contract expressly stipulated that all disputes arising under, out of, or in connection with it were subject to the laws of India. The arbitration clause was not a separate agreement but formed part of the same contract. In the absence of any unmistakable indication to the contrary, the proper law governing the contract was treated as governing the arbitration agreement as well. The mere fact that the arbitration was conducted in London did not convert the award into a foreign award when the arbitration agreement itself remained governed by Indian law.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was governed by Indian law, and the award was not a foreign award merely because it was made in London.

Issue (ii): Whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to receive and file the award.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1940 depended on whether the court would have had jurisdiction to entertain a suit concerning the subject matter of the reference. It was not necessary that the whole cause of action arise within the court's territorial limits. Since the respondent carried on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, and since an earlier arbitration petition concerning the same arbitration had already been filed there, the court was competent to receive the award. The place where part of the underlying work was performed outside India did not defeat that jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to take the award on file.

Issue (iii): Whether the filing remedy survived the repeal and transition to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The arbitration proceedings had commenced before the new Act came into force. The saving provision preserved the applicability of the earlier arbitral regime to such proceedings. The filing of the award was treated as part of the rights and consequences flowing from the pending arbitration reference, and not as a bar created by the repeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner's right to seek filing of the award was preserved notwithstanding the repeal.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the award was directed to be filed in court with the connected depositions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract expressly chooses Indian law to govern all disputes and the arbitration clause forms part of that contract, the arbitration agreement is ordinarily governed by the same law unless a contrary intention is unmistakably shown; an award made abroad in such circumstances is not automatically a foreign award, and the competent Indian court may receive it if jurisdiction exists under the arbitration statute.

---