Foreign-seated arbitration and implied exclusion of Part I barred Indian court relief under Section 9

An arbitration clause requiring proceedings in London, use of London arbitration machinery, and governance by English law was treated as showing the parties' implied intention that London was the juridical seat and that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded. On that basis, Indian courts had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9. The earlier Bhatia International approach, under which Part I could apply to foreign-seated arbitrations unless excluded, did not assist where the contractual language itself showed implied exclusion; the later prospective declaration in Bharat Aluminium did not change that result.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Indian court had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a dispute governed by English law with arbitration to be held in London, and whether the later declaration in Bharat Aluminium Co. displaced the earlier Bhatia International line for this contract.

Analysis: The arbitration clause provided for arbitration in London, required commercial men from the London arbitration body, and stated that the contract was to be governed and construed according to English law. Reading these stipulations together, the parties' presumed intention was that London was the juridical seat of arbitration and that the arbitration agreement was excluded from Part I of the Act by implication. In such a case, the principle in Bhatia International that Part I may apply to foreign-seated arbitrations unless excluded by agreement did not assist the appellant, while the later prospective declaration in Bharat Aluminium did not alter the result because the contractual framework itself showed implied exclusion.

Conclusion: The Indian courts lacked jurisdiction under Section 9, and the appeal failed.

---