https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340189 Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded where the arbitration agreement referred disputes to ICC Rules, the ICC fixed London as the juridical seat, and the arbitration was conducted there without objection. The seat governed the curial law and the law applicable to challenges to the award. The contract's foreign governing law, together with the agreed institutional procedure and foreign seat, showed an intention to exclude Section 34 proceedings in India. A Section 34 petition before the Bombay High Court was therefore not maintainable, and the challenge to the foreign-seated awards could not proceed in India. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:18:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340189 Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was excluded where the arbitration agreement referred disputes to ICC Rules, the ICC fixed London as the juridical seat, and the arbitration was conducted there without objection. The seat governed the curial law and the law applicable to challenges to the award. The contract's foreign governing law, together with the agreed institutional procedure and foreign seat, showed an intention to exclude Section 34 proceedings in India. A Section 34 petition before the Bombay High Court was therefore not maintainable, and the challenge to the foreign-seated awards could not proceed in India. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340189