https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784748 An arbitration clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to New Delhi courts was read as making New Delhi the juridical seat, because the reference to ICC Rules governed procedure and the later fixation of Singapore as the place of arbitration was treated as venue only. The objection to Indian court jurisdiction therefore failed. A co-arbitrator's prior professional association, coupled with failure to disclose it, was held to create justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality under the continuing disclosure duty in Section 12. The foreign anti-suit injunction did not bar the Indian suit, as the Indian seat court retained supervisory jurisdiction. Anti-arbitration relief was accordingly supported and the arbitral restraint remained in place. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:31:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784748 An arbitration clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to New Delhi courts was read as making New Delhi the juridical seat, because the reference to ICC Rules governed procedure and the later fixation of Singapore as the place of arbitration was treated as venue only. The objection to Indian court jurisdiction therefore failed. A co-arbitrator's prior professional association, coupled with failure to disclose it, was held to create justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality under the continuing disclosure duty in Section 12. The foreign anti-suit injunction did not bar the Indian suit, as the Indian seat court retained supervisory jurisdiction. Anti-arbitration relief was accordingly supported and the arbitral restraint remained in place. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784748