CAN INDIAN CO.S CHOOSE FOREIGN SEAT OF ARBITRATION ?

Domestic Arbitration, Foreign Law, India,

Arbitration between Indian Parties

Generally it is understood that Parties can adopt a foreign seat of arbitration only when at least one of the parties to the arbitration is Foreign. It is also understood that if both the parties are Indian, they cannot choose foreign seat of arbitration.

Supreme Court Judgment of Pasl Wind Solutions Vs. GE Power Conversion

Supreme Court in the Recent 3 Judges Bench Judgment of Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited Versus GE Power Conversion India Private Limited Decide on 20-04-2021 held that if both the Indian parties, have agreed that the seat of arbitration to be in the Foreign Country, then the seat of arbitration chosen by the Parties will be applicable. Besides, it is also clarified that inspite of seat of Arbitration to be in Foreign Country, arbitration tribunal on the request of the parties can choose venue or arbitration in India.

Can Foreign Law be made applicable on Contract between Indian Parties ?

The impact of choosing a Foreign Seat of Arbitration is that the concerned Jurisdictional Court and Law (Foreign) will be applicable on Arbitral Award.

This Judgment has a long lasting impact on the Commercial World as Now Indian Companies can choose any Foreign Seat for the resolution of their Commercial disputes and still enjoy the an Indian Venue, thereby making the arbitration proceedings more professional and expeditious.


Location: Delhi, India
Praveen Agrawal Advocate Supreme Court of India A 37 LGF, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar - 4, New Delhi Phone # 9811702850 dokania100@gmail.com NO CALLS PLEASE ONLY WHATSAPP ME - IF I FEEL NECESSARY I WILL CALL YOU BACK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WILL PROCEEDINGS START DE-NOVO OR CONTINUE IN CASE OF RETURN OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 CPC?

Image
      Order 7 and Return of Plaint is one of the fundamental objections taken by Defense Counsel in Civil Litigation. In case of return of Plaint from a Court lacking inherent Jurisdiction to the court of appropriate Jurisdiction, a moot question arises for consideration is whether the proceedings shall start “De-Novo” (fresh) or it will be a continuance of the earlier proceedings ?   There has been a difference of opinion even in Supreme Court and therefore the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Issue is now settled in the matter of  EXL Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services  Private Limited    decided on 05-08-2020 as follows :-    (1) The proceedings will start afresh (DE-NOVO) and NO cognizance of  proceedings or earlier court will be considered.   (2) For the purpose of limitation, Plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction.   ...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more