https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296031 A foreign juridical seat of arbitration and an express choice of English law for the arbitration agreement excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the substantive contract was governed by Indian law. The SC treated the arbitration clause as separable from the main contract and held that the proper law of the contract did not preserve Indian supervisory jurisdiction over the award challenge. A Section 34 petition in the Delhi High Court was therefore not maintainable, and public policy objections could not by themselves create Indian jurisdiction where Part I had been excluded; such objections remained relevant only at the enforcement stage. en-us Wed, 28 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jul 2021 07:54:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296031 A foreign juridical seat of arbitration and an express choice of English law for the arbitration agreement excluded Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the substantive contract was governed by Indian law. The SC treated the arbitration clause as separable from the main contract and held that the proper law of the contract did not preserve Indian supervisory jurisdiction over the award challenge. A Section 34 petition in the Delhi High Court was therefore not maintainable, and public policy objections could not by themselves create Indian jurisdiction where Part I had been excluded; such objections remained relevant only at the enforcement stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296031