https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370023 A dispute resolution clause naming New York as the place of arbitration, coupled with arbitration under the AAA Rules and New York Convention enforcement language, was treated as creating a foreign-seated arbitration governed by foreign law. The Court held that the main contract's governing law clause did not alter the arbitration agreement, which remained a separate and stand-alone agreement. Applying party autonomy and the principles on seat and venue, it found that designating New York as the place of arbitration fixed the juridical seat and impliedly excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Section 34 challenge in India was therefore not maintainable. 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 A dispute resolution clause naming New York as the place of arbitration, coupled with arbitration under the AAA Rules and New York Convention enforcement language, was treated as creating a foreign-seated arbitration governed by foreign law. The Court held that the main contract's governing law clause did not alter the arbitration agreement, which remained a separate and stand-alone agreement. Applying party autonomy and the principles on seat and venue, it found that designating New York as the place of arbitration fixed the juridical seat and impliedly excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Section 34 challenge in India was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370023