https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195810 A foreign-seated arbitration clause specifying Singapore as the seat and SIAC rules, while excluding Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act except section 9, was treated as indicating that the arbitration agreement was governed by Singapore law, so a jurisdictional challenge to the Singapore seat failed. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in a civil investment dispute were held not to make the matter non-arbitrable, and the dispute remained fit for arbitral determination. Interim mandatory relief was permitted only on a stronger standard than a prima facie case, so a direction to deposit the entire claimed amount as security was found excessive and was reduced to a proportionate sum. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195810 A foreign-seated arbitration clause specifying Singapore as the seat and SIAC rules, while excluding Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act except section 9, was treated as indicating that the arbitration agreement was governed by Singapore law, so a jurisdictional challenge to the Singapore seat failed. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in a civil investment dispute were held not to make the matter non-arbitrable, and the dispute remained fit for arbitral determination. Interim mandatory relief was permitted only on a stronger standard than a prima facie case, so a direction to deposit the entire claimed amount as security was found excessive and was reduced to a proportionate sum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195810