Implied exclusion of Part I through English law and London arbitration rules barred a Section 34 challenge in India.

Choice of English law and incorporation of the Refined Sugar Association, London rules impliedly excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Because the contract treated itself, the place of performance, and the arbitral seat as England, and the arbitration clause required disputes to be resolved under English law, the Court found that both the contract and the arbitration agreement were governed by English law. On that footing, a Section 34 challenge in India to the foreign award was not maintainable, and the objection to Indian jurisdiction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the parties, by choosing English law and the rules of the Refined Sugar Association, London, had impliedly excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 so that a petition under Section 34 to challenge the foreign arbitral award was not maintainable in India.

Analysis: The contract was expressly made subject to the rules of the Refined Sugar Association, London, and those rules treated the contract as made in England, the place of performance as England, and the seat of arbitration as England. The arbitration clause also provided that disputes would be settled according to English law. Applying the governing law chosen by the parties and the principle recognised in Bhatia International that Part I may be excluded by agreement, the Court held that the contractual terms and incorporated rules unmistakably showed that English law governed both the contract and the arbitration agreement. In such a situation, a challenge under Section 34 in India could not be maintained.

Conclusion: Part I was held to be excluded by implication, and the Indian court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 challenge; the objection to maintainability was upheld.

---