TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the awards made in London was maintainable in India in the absence of an express exclusion of Part I of the Act; (ii) Whether the delay in filing the petition, including challenge to the earlier partial awards, deserved condonation.
Issue (i): Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the awards made in London was maintainable in India in the absence of an express exclusion of Part I of the Act.
Analysis: The agreement contained mixed indicators on governing law, procedural law, and jurisdiction, while the underlying transaction, subject matter, and performance obligations were closely connected with India. The Court applied the then-prevailing principles under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that the seat of arbitration and foreign procedural law did not, by themselves, exclude the Indian court's jurisdiction. In the absence of a clear agreement excluding Part I, and in view of the Indian nexus of the dispute, the challenge to the awards was held to be entertainable in India.
Conclusion: The petition under Section 34 was held maintainable in India, in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the petition, including challenge to the earlier partial awards, deserved condonation.
Analysis: The partial awards and the final award were treated as interlinked and incapable of being dissected for the purpose of limitation in the facts of the case. The petition was filed within the outer limit contemplated by the Act, and sufficient cause was found to condone the delay so that the challenge to the awards could be considered together.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned, in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The Court permitted the challenge to proceed in India and condoned the delay, but left the substantive petition to be dealt with further at the admission stage.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express or clearly implied exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Section 34 challenge to a foreign award may be maintained in India where the dispute and cause of action have a substantial Indian nexus.
TaxTMI 
