https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169889 An arbitration clause fixing Seoul as the seat, read with a Korean governing-law clause and ICC rules, was construed as excluding Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bracketed wording allowing another place by written agreement was treated as a hearing convenience, not a change of seat. As a result, Indian courts lacked jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to appoint an arbitrator, and the precedents on appointment where no such exclusion exists were inapplicable. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169889 An arbitration clause fixing Seoul as the seat, read with a Korean governing-law clause and ICC rules, was construed as excluding Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bracketed wording allowing another place by written agreement was treated as a hearing convenience, not a change of seat. As a result, Indian courts lacked jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to appoint an arbitrator, and the precedents on appointment where no such exclusion exists were inapplicable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169889