https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404917 The Supreme Court examined whether the dispute qualified as an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It noted that the contractual and entity documents indicated a sole proprietorship structure in India and treated the husband and wife as a single distributorship entity, so the foreign nationality or residence of individuals did not displace the statutory foreign-element analysis. The Court distinguished earlier consortium-based authority on different facts. On that basis, the dispute was treated as an international commercial arbitration and jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator did not vest in the High Court under Section 11(6). en-us Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404917 The Supreme Court examined whether the dispute qualified as an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It noted that the contractual and entity documents indicated a sole proprietorship structure in India and treated the husband and wife as a single distributorship entity, so the foreign nationality or residence of individuals did not displace the statutory foreign-element analysis. The Court distinguished earlier consortium-based authority on different facts. On that basis, the dispute was treated as an international commercial arbitration and jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator did not vest in the High Court under Section 11(6). Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404917