2009 (7) TMI 1338 - HC - Indian Laws

Delhi High Court dismisses Section 9 Arbitration Act application, citing lack of jurisdiction and upholding Singapore arbitration venue

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim measures, citing ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Interpretation of Article 19 of the Agreement concerning governing law and dispute resolution.3. Applicability of Indian arbitration law to international commercial arbitration held outside India.4. The principle of comity of jurisdictions and forum non-conveniens.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim measures, given that the arbitration was to be conducted under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rules in Singapore. The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that the parties had chosen Singapore as the venue for arbitration and agreed that the courts of Singapore would have jurisdiction over disputes. This choice implied the exclusion of Indian courts' jurisdiction, even for interim measures.2. Interpretation of Article 19 of the Agreement concerning governing law and dispute resolution:Article 19 of the Agreement specified that the agreement would be governed by Singapore law and that disputes would be resolved under the SIAC Rules, with the venue of arbitration in Singapore. The Court noted that this clause clearly indicated the parties' intention to have their disputes resolved in Singapore, applying Singapore law. The Court emphasized that this choice of law and forum was a conscious decision by the parties, indicating an 'unmistakable intention' to exclude the jurisdiction of Indian courts.3. Applicability of Indian arbitration law to international commercial arbitration held outside India:The appellant argued that, under the Supreme Court's decision in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including Section 9, would apply to international commercial arbitrations held outside India unless specifically excluded. However, the Court distinguished the present case from Bhatia International, noting that the parties had expressly chosen Singapore law and jurisdiction, which implied the exclusion of Indian arbitration law. The Court concluded that the parties' agreement to apply Singapore law and confer jurisdiction on Singapore courts amounted to an implied exclusion of Part I of the Indian Act.4. The principle of comity of jurisdictions and forum non-conveniens:The Court also discussed the principle of comity of jurisdictions, which refers to the respect one jurisdiction gives to the laws and judicial decisions of another. The Court held that, given the clear choice of Singapore as the forum for arbitration and the application of Singapore law, it would be inappropriate for Indian courts to intervene. The principle of forum non-conveniens, which allows courts to refuse jurisdiction when another forum is more appropriate, was also applied. The Court found that Singapore was the appropriate forum for resolving disputes and seeking interim measures, given the parties' agreement.Conclusion:The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the parties' clear and unmistakable intention to have their disputes resolved in Singapore under Singapore law, which implied the exclusion of Indian courts' jurisdiction. The principles of comity of jurisdictions and forum non-conveniens further supported this conclusion. The appeal was dismissed with costs.