Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable where the agreement between foreign parties provided for German law, German procedural law, and Frankfurt/Main as the exclusive venue for arbitration.
Analysis: Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies where the place of arbitration is in India. The agreement expressly subjected the disputes to German law, provided that arbitration would be conducted under the German Code of Civil Procedure, and fixed Frankfurt/Main as the exclusive venue. The parties were foreign entities, and the dispute was not one for enforcement of a foreign award. On these terms, the arbitration was outside the territorial scope of Part I of the Act. The parties were entitled to choose both the substantive law and the seat of arbitration, and where the seat was outside India, Section 9 could not be invoked in India.
Conclusion: Section 9 was held inapplicable, and the application was not maintainable. The petition was dismissed and the interim restraint was vacated.
Ratio Decidendi: Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including Section 9, applies only where the seat of arbitration is in India; where foreign parties choose a foreign seat and foreign procedural law, Indian interim relief under Section 9 is unavailable.