https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307381 An arbitration clause providing for ICC arbitration, English-language proceedings, and London as the venue was held to designate London as the juridical seat when read with the agreement and surrounding indicia. On that basis, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as excluded, so Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction to entertain a Section 34 challenge. The Court applied the Shashoua principle, as accepted in BALCO and Enercon, and held that the governing law of the underlying contract being Indian law did not by itself preserve Indian court jurisdiction where the seat was foreign. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2023 08:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307381 An arbitration clause providing for ICC arbitration, English-language proceedings, and London as the venue was held to designate London as the juridical seat when read with the agreement and surrounding indicia. On that basis, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as excluded, so Indian courts lacked supervisory jurisdiction to entertain a Section 34 challenge. The Court applied the Shashoua principle, as accepted in BALCO and Enercon, and held that the governing law of the underlying contract being Indian law did not by itself preserve Indian court jurisdiction where the seat was foreign. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307381