https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257524 An arbitration clause requiring proceedings in London, use of London arbitration machinery, and governance by English law was treated as showing the parties' implied intention that London was the juridical seat and that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded. On that basis, Indian courts had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9. The earlier Bhatia International approach, under which Part I could apply to foreign-seated arbitrations unless excluded, did not assist where the contractual language itself showed implied exclusion; the later prospective declaration in Bharat Aluminium did not change that result. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257524 An arbitration clause requiring proceedings in London, use of London arbitration machinery, and governance by English law was treated as showing the parties' implied intention that London was the juridical seat and that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded. On that basis, Indian courts had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9. The earlier Bhatia International approach, under which Part I could apply to foreign-seated arbitrations unless excluded, did not assist where the contractual language itself showed implied exclusion; the later prospective declaration in Bharat Aluminium did not change that result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257524