https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198144 The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court. It held that Indian courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute as the seat of arbitration was London. Therefore, the petition under Section 34 of the Act could not be entertained by Indian courts, emphasizing the binding interpretation of the arbitration agreement by the English courts. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198144 The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court. It held that Indian courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute as the seat of arbitration was London. Therefore, the petition under Section 34 of the Act could not be entertained by Indian courts, emphasizing the binding interpretation of the arbitration agreement by the English courts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198144