https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365643 The juridical seat of arbitration, coupled with an exclusive jurisdiction clause, was held to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the chosen court, so the Mumbai courts alone could entertain the Section 34 application and the Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction. Section 34 proceedings were also held to be summary in nature, ordinarily to be decided on the arbitral record and affidavits, with oral evidence, framing of issues, and cross-examination not required as a matter of course. The direction for a full evidentiary hearing was therefore erroneous, and the High Court's order was set aside while the rejection of the Section 34 application for want of territorial jurisdiction was restored. en-us Mon, 20 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 18:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365643 The juridical seat of arbitration, coupled with an exclusive jurisdiction clause, was held to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the chosen court, so the Mumbai courts alone could entertain the Section 34 application and the Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction. Section 34 proceedings were also held to be summary in nature, ordinarily to be decided on the arbitral record and affidavits, with oral evidence, framing of issues, and cross-examination not required as a matter of course. The direction for a full evidentiary hearing was therefore erroneous, and the High Court's order was set aside while the rejection of the Section 34 application for want of territorial jurisdiction was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365643