https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218722 A Section 34 challenge to a foreign arbitral award was held not maintainable in India where the arbitration agreement, read as a whole, selected New York law, New York arbitration, and a post-award mechanism centred on New York courts. The expression "non-exclusive jurisdiction" did not, by itself, preserve a right to invoke Indian court jurisdiction for a Section 34 petition. Because the award had already been confirmed in New York, the Court declined to reopen the matter in India and left the public policy objection to any future enforcement proceedings. en-us Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218722 A Section 34 challenge to a foreign arbitral award was held not maintainable in India where the arbitration agreement, read as a whole, selected New York law, New York arbitration, and a post-award mechanism centred on New York courts. The expression "non-exclusive jurisdiction" did not, by itself, preserve a right to invoke Indian court jurisdiction for a Section 34 petition. Because the award had already been confirmed in New York, the Court declined to reopen the matter in India and left the public policy objection to any future enforcement proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218722