https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370023 The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the dismissal of an Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to lack of jurisdiction. The court determined New York as the juridical seat of arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the Escrow Agreement. It concluded that the arbitration agreement was governed by U.S. law, excluding Part-I of the Act. Therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition, emphasizing the importance of parties' choices in determining jurisdiction and applicable law. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 10:57:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370023 The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the dismissal of an Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to lack of jurisdiction. The court determined New York as the juridical seat of arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the Escrow Agreement. It concluded that the arbitration agreement was governed by U.S. law, excluding Part-I of the Act. Therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition, emphasizing the importance of parties' choices in determining jurisdiction and applicable law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370023