Singapore-seated arbitration excludes Indian interim relief where the contract, arbitration agreement, and curial law are all Singapore law.

An application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was held not maintainable in India where the contract was governed by Singapore law, disputes were referred to SIAC arbitration in Singapore, and Singapore courts were given jurisdiction. The court treated Singapore as the seat and juridical centre of the dispute resolution mechanism, and held that Part I of the Act stood excluded by necessary implication because the proper law of the contract, the arbitration agreement, and the curial law were all Singapore law. Bhatia International was distinguished, and comity of jurisdictions and forum non conveniens supported Singapore as the appropriate forum for interim relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in India where the agreement was governed by Singapore law, arbitration was to be conducted under SIAC Rules at Singapore, and the courts of Singapore were conferred jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the agreement.

Analysis: The parties had unmistakably chosen Singapore as the seat and juridical centre of the dispute resolution mechanism. The agreement made Singapore law applicable to the contract and to the arbitration proceedings, referred disputes to SIAC arbitration, and vested jurisdiction in the Singapore courts. In such circumstances, the Indian court held that Part I of the Act stood excluded by necessary implication, because the proper law of the contract and the arbitration agreement, as well as the curial law, were all Singapore law. The reasoning in Bhatia International was distinguished on the ground that it applied where Part I had not been excluded, while here the contractual framework and the chosen foreign forum showed a clear exclusion of Indian jurisdiction. Principles of comity of jurisdictions and forum non conveniens also supported the conclusion that Singapore was the appropriate forum even for interim relief.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was not maintainable in India, and jurisdiction lay with the Singapore courts and the arbitral framework chosen by the parties.

---