https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199391 Where Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied and was not excluded, Indian courts could entertain a Section 34 challenge even though the arbitration was foreign-seated and governed by ICC rules, because the contract and arbitration agreement were governed by Indian law. However, a ruling rejecting a tribunal's jurisdictional objection was treated as a preliminary decision under Sections 16 and 37, not as an award independently challengeable under Section 34. The challenge to the partial award was therefore premature and not maintainable at that stage, leaving Section 34 available only against the final arbitral award. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:33:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199391 Where Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied and was not excluded, Indian courts could entertain a Section 34 challenge even though the arbitration was foreign-seated and governed by ICC rules, because the contract and arbitration agreement were governed by Indian law. However, a ruling rejecting a tribunal's jurisdictional objection was treated as a preliminary decision under Sections 16 and 37, not as an award independently challengeable under Section 34. The challenge to the partial award was therefore premature and not maintainable at that stage, leaving Section 34 available only against the final arbitral award. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199391