https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186661 Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as territorially confined to arbitrations seated in India because Section 2(2) was read as clear and unambiguous. On that construction, a petition under Section 11 could not be maintained for a foreign-seated arbitration. The agreement to arbitrate in New York, read with the surrounding circumstances, also supported the ordinary presumption that the law governing the arbitration agreement follows the law of the seat, and nothing in the contract or correspondence displaced that presumption in favour of Indian law. en-us Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:17:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186661 Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as territorially confined to arbitrations seated in India because Section 2(2) was read as clear and unambiguous. On that construction, a petition under Section 11 could not be maintained for a foreign-seated arbitration. The agreement to arbitrate in New York, read with the surrounding circumstances, also supported the ordinary presumption that the law governing the arbitration agreement follows the law of the seat, and nothing in the contract or correspondence displaced that presumption in favour of Indian law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186661