https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199379 The arbitration clause was construed to permit a first arbitration in India followed by a further proceeding in London, but the later process was not treated as a true appeal and did not nullify the earlier award. The Court held that successive awards could coexist, so the first nil award remained effective against enforcement of the London award. On foreign-award status, the decisive question was whether Indian courts retained supervisory jurisdiction and a Section 34 challenge was available under the governing Indian law. Because that supervisory link existed, the London award was not a foreign award for Part II enforcement and could not be executed while the conflicting Indian award stood. en-us Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:56:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199379 The arbitration clause was construed to permit a first arbitration in India followed by a further proceeding in London, but the later process was not treated as a true appeal and did not nullify the earlier award. The Court held that successive awards could coexist, so the first nil award remained effective against enforcement of the London award. On foreign-award status, the decisive question was whether Indian courts retained supervisory jurisdiction and a Section 34 challenge was available under the governing Indian law. Because that supervisory link existed, the London award was not a foreign award for Part II enforcement and could not be executed while the conflicting Indian award stood. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199379