https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161396 Where parties chose Singapore as the arbitration seat and adopted the SIAC Rules, the Court treated that institutional regime as the curial law governing the proceedings. On that basis, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the Indian appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(b), did not apply to a challenge against the arbitral tribunal's interim order. The Court also held that Section 42 operated only at the pre-arbitration stage and did not preserve Indian court jurisdiction once the foreign-seated arbitration had commenced. The agreed foreign curial regime therefore displaced Indian statutory remedies. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161396 Where parties chose Singapore as the arbitration seat and adopted the SIAC Rules, the Court treated that institutional regime as the curial law governing the proceedings. On that basis, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the Indian appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(b), did not apply to a challenge against the arbitral tribunal's interim order. The Court also held that Section 42 operated only at the pre-arbitration stage and did not preserve Indian court jurisdiction once the foreign-seated arbitration had commenced. The agreed foreign curial regime therefore displaced Indian statutory remedies. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161396