https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111831 Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was construed strictly: a company incorporated in India remains an Indian party even if its central management and control is exercised outside India. That factor alone does not convert the dispute into an international commercial arbitration. The Act was read as maintaining a clear distinction between domestic and international arbitration, reinforced by Section 28. On that basis, the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator merely because control is exercised abroad. en-us Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111831 Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was construed strictly: a company incorporated in India remains an Indian party even if its central management and control is exercised outside India. That factor alone does not convert the dispute into an international commercial arbitration. The Act was read as maintaining a clear distinction between domestic and international arbitration, reinforced by Section 28. On that basis, the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator merely because control is exercised abroad. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111831