TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before the Chief Justice of India or his designate when the agreed place of arbitration was New York.
Analysis: Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes Part I applicable where the place of arbitration is in India. The provision was treated as clear and unambiguous, so the statutory scheme was held to confine the operation of Section 11 to arbitrations seated in India. The agreement to arbitrate in New York, read with the surrounding circumstances, supported the ordinary presumption that the law governing the arbitration agreement corresponded to the law of the seat, and nothing in the contract or correspondence rebutted that presumption in favour of Indian law.
Conclusion: The petition under Section 11(4) was not maintainable before the Chief Justice of India or his designate, and the petition was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The decision holds that the appointment jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is territorially confined to arbitrations seated in India, so a foreign-seated arbitration cannot be brought within Section 11 on the basis of the place of performance or breach in India.
Ratio Decidendi: Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only where the place of arbitration is in India, and a Section 11 petition is not maintainable for a foreign-seated arbitration absent contrary contractual indication.
TaxTMI 
