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 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in India to set aside foreign awards made in England in arbitration governed by English law.
Analysis: The agreement made Indian law the governing law of the contract, but separately provided that arbitration would be conducted pursuant to the English Arbitration Law and wholly in London. The awards were in fact rendered under the English procedural regime. Under the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Part I governs domestic arbitrations, while Part II contains special provisions for foreign awards. Section 48(1)(e) permits refusal of enforcement if the award has been set aside by the competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made. Where the parties have chosen Indian law for the contract but English law for arbitration, the law governing the arbitration and the award is English law, not Indian law. The authorities relied on by the appellant were distinguished on the ground that they did not involve such an express contractual choice of English law for arbitration.
Conclusion: An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable against the foreign awards, because the awards were made under English law and could be challenged only before the competent authority under that law.