https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198144 An arbitration clause naming London as the venue, together with ICC Rules, English-language hearings and no contrary indicators, was treated as fixing London as the juridical seat; Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was therefore excluded. Once the arbitration was found to be seated outside India, Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction over a Section 34 challenge, and that jurisdiction could not be created by consent, conduct or the mere filing of proceedings in India. The Section 34 petition was held not maintainable in India, and the jurisdictional view taken by the High Court was set aside. 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 An arbitration clause naming London as the venue, together with ICC Rules, English-language hearings and no contrary indicators, was treated as fixing London as the juridical seat; Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was therefore excluded. Once the arbitration was found to be seated outside India, Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction over a Section 34 challenge, and that jurisdiction could not be created by consent, conduct or the mere filing of proceedings in India. The Section 34 petition was held not maintainable in India, and the jurisdictional view taken by the High Court was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198144