https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327789 Where parties chose London as the seat of arbitration and English law to govern the arbitration, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded by express or necessary implication. As a result, supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process did not lie under Indian law, and a challenge to the foreign award under Section 34 before an Indian court was not maintainable. The foreign award therefore remained to be dealt with under Part II, and the Bombay High Court's order enforcing it was upheld. en-us Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327789 Where parties chose London as the seat of arbitration and English law to govern the arbitration, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded by express or necessary implication. As a result, supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process did not lie under Indian law, and a challenge to the foreign award under Section 34 before an Indian court was not maintainable. The foreign award therefore remained to be dealt with under Part II, and the Bombay High Court's order enforcing it was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327789