TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded where the arbitration was seated in London and governed by English law, and whether objections to the foreign award were maintainable in India under Section 34.
Analysis: The arbitration clause stipulated that disputes were to be referred to arbitration in London and that English law would apply. The choice of a foreign juridical seat, coupled with the choice of foreign governing law, was held to evince the parties' intention to exclude the application of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Once Part I was excluded, the supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process and any challenge to the award lay under the law of the chosen seat and not under Indian law. Consequently, a challenge under Section 34 before an Indian court was not maintainable. The foreign award, on the other hand, was liable to be dealt with under Part II, and the Bombay High Court's order enforcing it was upheld.
Conclusion: Part I stood excluded, the Section 34 challenge in India was untenable, and enforcement of the foreign award under Part II was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where parties choose a foreign seat of arbitration and a foreign law to govern the arbitration, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded by express or necessary implication, and an award debtor cannot invoke Section 34 before an court to challenge the foreign award.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
