The seat of the arbitration can be deduced from the conduct of not raising objections as to conduct of arbitration proceedings at a particular territory (Bombay High Court)

     Update by Editor

Omprakash and others v. Vijay Dwarkada Varma MANU/MH/0543/202 High Court of Bombay (Nagpur); single-judge bench, Manish Pitale J decided on 27 April 2020 A partnership deed had an arbitration clause. The partners had a dispute. One of them applied for appointment of an arbitrator and the High Court made the

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Arbitral seat |  Jurisdiction |  Place of arbitration |  Section 34 |  Section 42  

Mere expression “place of arbitration” is not determinative of the “seat” of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat” should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties. (Supreme Court of India)

     Updates by Nishant Gupta

Mankastu Impex Private Limited v AirVisual Limited 2020 SCC OnLine SC 301 Supreme Court of India; 3-judge bench, R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy JJ, decided on 05 March 2020   A.  THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE Mankastu, an Indian company, and AirVisual, a Hong Kong company, had a memorandum

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral seat |  Place of arbitration |  Seat of arbitration |  Section 20 |  Venue of arbitration  

If a court determines that the seat is somewhere else, it has no jurisdiction even if cause of action arose in its jurisdiction and even if before the determination of seat, a prior application had been filed before it (Supreme Court of India)

     Updates by Editor

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. NHPC Ltd. and others, MANU/SC/0299/2020 Supreme Court of India; 3-judge bench, RF Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian JJ; decided on 04 March 2020   A 3-judge bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat and V Ramasubramanian JJ has reiterated, following BGS SGS

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral seat |  Court |  Exclusive jurisdiction |  Section 2(1)(e)  

Wrong composition of seat and wrong composition of arbitral tribunal is ground for refusing enforcement- establishing prejudice not required; significance and consequences of seat; determination of seat et. al. (Supreme Court of Singapore)

     Updates by Prerna Seerwani

ST Group Co Ltd and others v Sanum Investments Limited and another, [2019] SGCA 65 Supreme Court of Singapore (Court of Appeal); 3-judge bench, Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JA and Quentin Loh JJ., decided on 18 November 2019   Article 36 Model Law and Section 31 International Arbitration Act

Continue reading
Categories: 1994 |  Arbitral seat |  Art 36 (1) (a) (iv) Model Law |  Composition of arbitral tribunal |  Construction of arbitration agreement |  Construction of contract |  Enforcement  |  Enforcement of arbitral awards |  Enforcement of foreign awards |  Enforcement of wrongly seated arbitration |  Estoppel |  Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement |  Interpretation of contract |  Prejudice |  Seat |  Seat of arbitration |  Waiver  

Which court has jurisdiction over an arbitral process clarified; BALCO’s concurrent-jurisdiction theory is not its real ratio; seat v. venue debate discussed; Hardy held to be contrary to BALCO (Supreme Court of India)

     Updates by Aimen Reshi , Prashant Mishra

BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., SCC OnLine SC 1585 Supreme Court, 3-judge bench, R.F Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V Ramasubramanian, JJ., Decided on 10 December 2019 Preface–which court has jurisdiction over an arbitral process and as a result jurisdiction to set aside an award Courts in the arbitral

Continue reading
Categories: Appealable orders |  Arbitral seat |  BALCO |  Concurrent jurisdiction |  Designation of arbitral seat |  Exclusive jurisdiction |  Interpretation of judgment |  Maintainability |  Seat |  Seat of arbitration |  Set aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award |  Tests for determination of seat |  Venue |  Venue of arbitration