Skip to main content

Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not applicable when arbitration agreement is governed by laws of England

Supreme Court: In an appeal concerning the maintainability of a petition filed under the  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the contract stating that the English Law of Arbitration was to be followed in the case of an arbitration arising out of a dispute, a division bench comprising of Surinder Singh and Dr. A. K. Sikri, JJ, following the Videocon India Limited v. Union of India,(2011) 6 SCC 161, held that an agreement as to the seat of an arbitration is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Any claim for a remedy as to the validity of an existing interim or final award is agreed to be made only in the courts of the place designated as the seat of arbitration. In the present case a production sharing contract which provided for production and exploration of oil fields was made by the two parties which was to be governed by the Indian Contract Law. However, in case of a dispute an arbitration procedure was to be instituted which was to be governed by the English Law as specifically mentioned in the agreement. A dispute arose between the two parties where the main contention of the State was that the dispute was to be decided on the basis of Indian laws whereas the appellants argued that the issue of arbitrability is governed by the law of the seat of arbitration which was London in this case.

The Court overturned the decision of Delhi High Court, where it was held that even though the arbitration agreement would be governed by the laws of England and that juridical seat of arbitration would be in London, Part I of the Arbitration Act would still be applicable as the laws governing the substantive contract are Indian Laws. [Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.5765 of 2014, decided on 28 May 2014]

 Artcle referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2014/06/14/part-i-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-not-applicable-when-arbitration-agreement-is-governed-by-laws-of-england.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more