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  

Seat is akin to exclusive jurisdiction (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Nishant Gupta

Dipankar Singh and others v. Union of India through National Highway Authority of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11121 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, V. Kameswar Rao J.; decided on 15 November 2019   The petitioners’ land was notified for acquisition under the National Highway Act, 1956 (“NHA”). The competent

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral seat |  Exclusive jurisdiction |  Seat |  Seat of arbitration  

When ‘venue’ means ‘seat’ (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Gunjan Soni

Raj Kumar Brothers v. Life Essentials Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine 10803 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, V. Kameswar Rao J.; decided on 31 October 2019 The arbitration agreement provided that the “venue of Arbitration shall be Gurgaon” and “all disputes … shall be subject to GURGAON jurisdiction”.

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral seat |  Exclusive jurisdiction |  Place |  Place of arbitration |  Seat |  Seat of arbitration |  Venue |  Venue of arbitration