Foreign-seated arbitration governed by English law excludes Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by necessary implication.

Where the juridical seat of arbitration is London and the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded by necessary implication and the Indian curial regime does not apply. On that basis, a Section 14 application was held not maintainable. The attempt to reopen the earlier determination of seat and governing law was also rejected, because those matters had already been conclusively decided and the renewed challenge was treated as barred and an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied to the arbitration agreement despite the juridical seat being London and the arbitration agreement being governed by English law; (ii) whether the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred from being reopened in view of the earlier final decision and dismissal of review and curative petitions.

Issue (i): Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied to the arbitration agreement despite the juridical seat being London and the arbitration agreement being governed by English law.

Analysis: The governing principle was that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to foreign-seated arbitrations only unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication. On the facts already determined between the parties, the juridical seat of arbitration was London and the arbitration agreement was governed by English law. Those features constituted exclusion of Part I by necessary implication, making the Indian curial regime inapplicable.

Conclusion: Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not apply, and the Section 14 application was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred from being reopened in view of the earlier final decision and dismissal of review and curative petitions.

Analysis: The earlier judgment had conclusively determined the governing seat and law of the arbitration agreement. The attempt to reopen that determination was rejected as the objection based on the amendment clause raised, at best, a mixed question of fact and law. The earlier decision therefore operated between the parties, and the renewed challenge also amounted to an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The challenge could not be reopened and was barred from succeeding.

Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition failed because the arbitration was held to be outside the scope of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the attempt to relitigate the settled question was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the juridical seat of arbitration is outside India and the arbitration agreement is governed by foreign law, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded by necessary implication, and a challenge seeking relief under that Part becomes non-maintainable.

---