Author: admin

ISSUE:

Whether Indian courts had jurisdiction over issues from international arbitration agreements involving parties who had completed numerous contracts, some before and some after the landmark decision in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO)?

Whether the language and circumstances of the arbitration agreement impliedly precluded Indian courts from exercising jurisdiction, specifically whether London was designated as the arbitral seat?

RULE:

The decision in this case was primarily based on the interpretation of the arbitration agreement and the applicability of Indian arbitration law. The court reviewed the concepts of "express or implied exclusion" of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as the notion of "presumed intention" and the significance of attaining a "fair result."

ISSUE:

Whether awards passed outside India, be challenged in Indian Courts?

RULE:

The parties expressly agreed that the arbitration will be conducted outside India, Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded and, hence cannot be challenged in Indian Courts.

ISSUE:

Whether Indian courts have the authority to give interim relief in international commercial arbitrations if the seat of arbitration is in a foreign country and the arbitration agreement does not expressly exclude Indian court jurisdiction?

Whether interpreting the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows Indian courts to exercise authority and intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations, and whether such intervention affects the enforceability of arbitration agreements and awards in international commercial contracts involving Indian parties?

RULE:

Indian courts can award temporary relief and intervene in international commercial arbitration matters, provided the parties' arbitration agreement does not expressly or tacitly preclude such jurisdiction. The Bhatia International case allowed Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction in concerns about international commercial arbitration proceedings outside India to provide interim protection measures. In this case, Indian courts modified the circumstances under which they can intervene in disputes involving foreign parties.

ISSUE:

Whether there is concurrent jurisdiction of two Courts, is the Impugned Order correct to hold that as a matter of party autonomy, the parties have made an express choice in conferring jurisdiction on the Courts?

RULE:

A choice of seat is itself an expression of party autonomy and carries with it the legal effect of conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of the seat.

ISSUE:

Whether Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is applicable to arbitration held outside the territory of India?

RULE:

The Jurisdictional Theory of Arbitration or the Territorial Theory in UNCITRAL explains broadly the role of the Courts at the seat of Arbitration having supervisory powers and control over the proceedings taking place within the boundaries of its territory.