https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94423 SC held that the disputes constitute an "international commercial arbitration" under Section 2(1)(f) of the 1996 Act, with the seat in Benin, thereby attracting Part II and excluding recourse to Section 11 in Part I. Since the parties had contractually agreed to arbitration in Benin under the principal BSA, the Section 11(6) petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator in India was declared misconceived and contrary to party autonomy. SC further held that findings of the Delhi HC under Section 45 on the operative contractual matrix and the validity of the Benin arbitration clause operate as issue estoppel between the same parties. Invocation of the group of companies doctrine was rejected as unsupported by evidence of mutual intention. The arbitration petition was dismissed. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:51 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94423 SC held that the disputes constitute an "international commercial arbitration" under Section 2(1)(f) of the 1996 Act, with the seat in Benin, thereby attracting Part II and excluding recourse to Section 11 in Part I. Since the parties had contractually agreed to arbitration in Benin under the principal BSA, the Section 11(6) petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator in India was declared misconceived and contrary to party autonomy. SC further held that findings of the Delhi HC under Section 45 on the operative contractual matrix and the validity of the Benin arbitration clause operate as issue estoppel between the same parties. Invocation of the group of companies doctrine was rejected as unsupported by evidence of mutual intention. The arbitration petition was dismissed. Highlights Indian Laws Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94423