https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159583 A contractual dispute-resolution clause naming the Arbitration Court under the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation as the forum was treated as binding. In light of that express forum choice, the Supreme Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator in India. The agreement excluded recourse to another appointment forum, and the Court therefore declined to interfere with the parties' chosen arbitral mechanism. The petition for appointment of an arbitrator in India was rejected as not maintainable. en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159583 A contractual dispute-resolution clause naming the Arbitration Court under the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation as the forum was treated as binding. In light of that express forum choice, the Supreme Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator in India. The agreement excluded recourse to another appointment forum, and the Court therefore declined to interfere with the parties' chosen arbitral mechanism. The petition for appointment of an arbitrator in India was rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159583