Foreign arbitral award challenge in India barred where the contract and confirmation process were centred in New York.

A Section 34 challenge to a foreign arbitral award was held not maintainable in India where the arbitration agreement, read as a whole, selected New York law, New York arbitration, and a post-award mechanism centred on New York courts. The expression "non-exclusive jurisdiction" did not, by itself, preserve a right to invoke Indian court jurisdiction for a Section 34 petition. Because the award had already been confirmed in New York, the Court declined to reopen the matter in India and left the public policy objection to any future enforcement proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in India to challenge a foreign arbitral award made in New York where the agreement contained New York governing law, New York arbitration, and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses.

Analysis: The agreement selected New York law, provided for arbitration in New York, and stated that any judgment on the award may be entered by a state or federal court of competent jurisdiction. Reading these clauses together, and in the light of the parties' conduct in the confirmation proceedings in New York, the Court held that the contractual scheme pointed to challenge and confirmation proceedings being pursued in New York and not by parallel proceedings in India. The expression non-exclusive jurisdiction did not confer a right to approach Indian courts for a Section 34 challenge. Since the foreign award had already been confirmed by the New York Court, the petitioner could not later invoke Indian jurisdiction to reopen the matter under Section 34. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to examine the public policy objection at that stage, leaving it open for any enforcement proceedings.

Conclusion: A Section 34 challenge in India to the foreign award was not maintainable. The petition was not entertained on merits and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration agreement, construed as a whole, indicates that the seat, governing law, and post-award challenge and confirmation mechanism are centred abroad, Indian courts will decline jurisdiction under Section 34 if the parties have, expressly or by necessary implication, excluded Part I of the Act for such a foreign award.

---