Rajasthan HC Orders Cyber Safety Reforms, Covering Influencer Rules and Aadhaar-Linked Digital IDs  ||  Bombay HC: SEBI Exercised Due Care and Caution in Approving the Wework India IPO Proposal  ||  Delhi HC: FEMA Summons Follow CPC, Not CrPC; ED May Call Women to Office For Statement Recording  ||  Kerala HC: Further Probe under Section 173(8) CrPC Allowed Only by Original Investigating Agency  ||  Delhi HC: Parties Must First Ask Social Media Platforms to Remove Content Before Seeking Injunction  ||  Supreme Court: Prosecutor Cannot Neglect Duty to Court in Pursuit of Securing Conviction  ||  Supreme Court: Selection Criteria Cannot be Altered After Interviews are Conducted  ||  NCLT Mumbai: Pending Cheque-Bounce Case Does not Prevent Admission of Insolvency Petition  ||  Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5    

Eitzen Bulk A/S and Ors. v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (13 May 2016)

Stalling foreign arbitral award with Indian law rebuked

MANU/SC/0583/2016

Arbitration

Where parties to a contract choose a seat of arbitration outside India and the law applicable is explicitly not Indian, courts in India do not have jurisdiction to entertain objections under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

The court ruled that by choosing London as the venue for arbitration, and by making English law applicable to arbitral proceedings, an inference could be made that no Indian law would be applicable. Further mentions to an ‘Umpire’ in the contract, a scheme unfamiliar in Indian arbitration law, presaged utilising only English law. The proclivity to institute proceedings in Indian courts when the intention was clearly not as much, however, earned the court’s ire. “The losing side has relentlessly resorted to apparent remedies for stalling the execution of the Award…typical of cases where even the fruits of Arbitration are interminably delayed”, said Justice Bobde.

Relevant : Harmony Innovation Shipping Limited v. Gupta Coal India Limited and Anr. MANU/SC/0231/2015 Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/1064/2015 Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Tags : ARBITRATION   ABROAD   JURISDICTION   UMPIRE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved