Foreign juridical seat excludes Part I arbitration jurisdiction in India, despite Indian governing law of the contract.

An arbitration clause providing for ICC arbitration, English-language proceedings, and London as the venue was held to designate London as the juridical seat when read with the agreement and surrounding indicia. On that basis, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as excluded, so Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction to entertain a Section 34 challenge. The Court applied the Shashoua principle, as accepted in BALCO and Enercon, and held that the governing law of the underlying contract being Indian law did not by itself preserve Indian court jurisdiction where the seat was foreign.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the terms of the shareholders agreement providing for ICC arbitration with the venue at London and governing law of the agreement as Indian law, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stood excluded and the Indian courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 34.

Analysis: The arbitration clause provided for ICC rules, English language proceedings and London as the venue, while the substantive agreement was governed by Indian law. The Court held that the distinction between venue and seat must be determined from the contractual text and surrounding indicia, and that a designated foreign seat carries with it the curial law and supervisory jurisdiction of that seat. It held that the principle in Shashoua, as accepted in BALCO and Enercon, treated a venue clause coupled with ICC rules and no contrary indicia as designating the juridical seat at London. Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the arbitration agreement consciously excluded the applicability of Part I of the Act, and that consent or prior filing in India could not confer jurisdiction where none existed in law.

Conclusion: Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded, and the Indian courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the Delhi High Court's ruling on jurisdiction was set aside, and the challenge under Section 34 could not proceed before Indian courts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration agreement, read as a whole, designates a foreign juridical seat and evinces exclusion of Part I, Indian courts cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Section 34 merely because the substantive contract is governed by Indian law.

---