https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277621 Where an arbitration clause is governed by Indian law and does not clearly exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a London venue and ICC rules do not by themselves imply exclusion of Part I; the section 34 challenge remained maintainable on that footing. For Section 42, only the first relevant application made to a competent court under Part I fixes jurisdiction, and an execution or enforcement petition under Sections 47 and 49 does not count for that purpose; the earlier section 9 petition in Delhi therefore prevailed, and the Noida court was not fixed as the exclusive forum on the basis relied upon below. en-us Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Dec 2018 06:40:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277621 Where an arbitration clause is governed by Indian law and does not clearly exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a London venue and ICC rules do not by themselves imply exclusion of Part I; the section 34 challenge remained maintainable on that footing. For Section 42, only the first relevant application made to a competent court under Part I fixes jurisdiction, and an execution or enforcement petition under Sections 47 and 49 does not count for that purpose; the earlier section 9 petition in Delhi therefore prevailed, and the Noida court was not fixed as the exclusive forum on the basis relied upon below. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277621