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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more