Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 1115 - SC - Indian LawsPowers of High Court in case of petition against International arbitration agreement - HELD THAT:- In terms of Clause 34.12 of the PSC entered into by 5 parties, the seat of arbitration was Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. However, due to outbreak of epidemic SARS, the arbitral tribunal decided to hold its sittings first at Amsterdam and then at London and the parties did not object to this. In the proceedings held at London, the arbitral tribunal recorded the consent of the parties for shifting the juridical seat of arbitration to London. Therefore, mere change in the physical venue of the hearing from Kuala Lumpur to Amsterdam and London did not amount to change in the juridical seat of arbitration. This is expressly indicated in Section 53 of the English Arbitration Act, 1996. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court had rightly followed the conclusion recorded by the three-Judge Bench in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA [2002 (3) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT] and held that the District Court, Vadodara did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed u/s 9 of the Act because the parties had agreed that the law governing the arbitration will be English law and the provisions of Part-I of the Indian Arbitration Act would apply to international commercial arbitrations held outside India, unless the parties by agreement express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions. In the present case also, the parties had agreed that notwithstanding Article 33.1, the arbitration agreement contained in Article 34 shall be governed by laws of England. This necessarily implies that the parties had agreed to exclude the provisions of Part I of the Act. As a corollary to the above conclusion, we hold that the Delhi HC did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the Respondents under Section 9 of the Act and the mere fact that the Appellant had earlier filed similar petitions was not sufficient to clothe that High Court with the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the Respondents. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by the Respondents under Section 9 of the Act is dismissed.
|