https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169931 An arbitration agreement was treated as severable from the disputed substantive contract and continued to bind the parties, so the dispute was referred to arbitration despite disagreement over whether the draft IPLA was concluded. The tribunal clause was held workable because the missing mechanism for appointing the third arbitrator was a curable machinery defect, not a fatal vagueness. Although London was described as the venue, Indian substantive law and curial law pointed to India as the juridical seat, so English supervisory jurisdiction was not accepted. On that basis, the anti-suit injunction was restored to restrain the English proceedings. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 10:55:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169931 An arbitration agreement was treated as severable from the disputed substantive contract and continued to bind the parties, so the dispute was referred to arbitration despite disagreement over whether the draft IPLA was concluded. The tribunal clause was held workable because the missing mechanism for appointing the third arbitrator was a curable machinery defect, not a fatal vagueness. Although London was described as the venue, Indian substantive law and curial law pointed to India as the juridical seat, so English supervisory jurisdiction was not accepted. On that basis, the anti-suit injunction was restored to restrain the English proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169931