Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The core controversy centres on the effect of deliberate non-disclosure by a nominee arbitrator, the determination of the juridical seat of arbitration, and the extent of supervisory jurisdiction of Indian courts notwithstanding the fixation of a foreign venue by an arbitral institution.
When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.
The Court clarified that the ‘Closest Connection Test’ for determining the seat of arbitration is no longer a viable criterion for determination. The seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law rules based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
by Jeevan Ballav Panda1 and Satish Padhi2
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
Calcutta High Court dismissed the present petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.