https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=42529 The parties expressly chose to have the place of arbitration in New York. This being the case, juridical seat of arbitration was New York. In fact, the appellant themselves invoked arbitration and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of New York. This being the case, it is not correct to hold that the place of arbitration referred to in clause 15 was merely a venue and not a seat of arbitration. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:22:15 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:22:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=42529 The parties expressly chose to have the place of arbitration in New York. This being the case, juridical seat of arbitration was New York. In fact, the appellant themselves invoked arbitration and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of New York. This being the case, it is not correct to hold that the place of arbitration referred to in clause 15 was merely a venue and not a seat of arbitration. Highlights Indian Laws Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:22:15 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=42529