https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198819 An application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was held not maintainable in India where the contract was governed by Singapore law, disputes were referred to SIAC arbitration in Singapore, and Singapore courts were given jurisdiction. The court treated Singapore as the seat and juridical centre of the dispute resolution mechanism, and held that Part I of the Act stood excluded by necessary implication because the proper law of the contract, the arbitration agreement, and the curial law were all Singapore law. Bhatia International was distinguished, and comity of jurisdictions and forum non conveniens supported Singapore as the appropriate forum for interim relief. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198819 An application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was held not maintainable in India where the contract was governed by Singapore law, disputes were referred to SIAC arbitration in Singapore, and Singapore courts were given jurisdiction. The court treated Singapore as the seat and juridical centre of the dispute resolution mechanism, and held that Part I of the Act stood excluded by necessary implication because the proper law of the contract, the arbitration agreement, and the curial law were all Singapore law. Bhatia International was distinguished, and comity of jurisdictions and forum non conveniens supported Singapore as the appropriate forum for interim relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198819