https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161413 A foreign governing law clause does not by itself exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from an international commercial arbitration. Where the agreement merely states that it is governed by and interpreted under California law, without expressly choosing a foreign seat or clearly excluding the Indian statute, exclusion of Part I cannot be inferred by necessary implication. On that basis, Section 11(5) remained applicable and the Chief Justice or nominee retained jurisdiction to appoint the sole arbitrator. The objection to jurisdiction was rejected. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161413 A foreign governing law clause does not by itself exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from an international commercial arbitration. Where the agreement merely states that it is governed by and interpreted under California law, without expressly choosing a foreign seat or clearly excluding the Indian statute, exclusion of Part I cannot be inferred by necessary implication. On that basis, Section 11(5) remained applicable and the Chief Justice or nominee retained jurisdiction to appoint the sole arbitrator. The objection to jurisdiction was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161413