Foreign-seated ICC arbitration excludes Part I relief in India, barring a Section 34 challenge to the award.

Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded where the arbitration agreement referred disputes to ICC Rules, the ICC fixed London as the juridical seat, and the arbitration was conducted there without objection. The seat governed the curial law and the law applicable to challenges to the award. The contract's foreign governing law, together with the agreed institutional procedure and foreign seat, showed an intention to exclude Section 34 proceedings in India. A Section 34 petition before the Bombay High Court was therefore not maintainable, and the challenge to the foreign-seated awards could not proceed in India.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before an Indian court where the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration under ICC Rules, the ICC fixed London as the juridical seat, and the parties carried on the arbitration without objection.

Analysis: The arbitration clause did not name India as the seat and instead subjected disputes to arbitration under the ICC Rules, under which the ICC was empowered to fix the place of arbitration. The ICC chose London as the juridical seat after consulting the parties, and the arbitration was in fact conducted there with all awards made in London. In such a situation, the seat of arbitration determines the curial law and the law governing challenges to the award. The clause showing Singapore law as the governing law of the contract, together with the agreed ICC procedure and the chosen foreign seat, evidenced an intention to exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from applying to the arbitration and any challenge to the awards.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 34 was not maintainable before the Bombay High Court. The finding of the High Court on maintainability was set aside, and the challenge to the foreign-seated awards could not be pursued in India.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the foreign seat of arbitration and the parties' agreement to ICC Rules excluded the application of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the award challenge in India.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties agree to institutional arbitration under rules empowering the institution to determine the seat, and the arbitration is in fact held at a foreign juridical seat, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands excluded and a Section 34 challenge is not maintainable in India.

---