Arbitration Law – International Commercial Arbitration – Award passed in respondent’s favour in an international commercial arbitration proceeding between the appellant and respondent (foreign company) – Application filed by appellant u/s.34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent challenging the legality of the award passed – Respondent raised objections inter alia that Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such application – Objection upheld by High Court – Issue as to when the arbitration agreement specifies the “venue” for holding arbitration sittings by the arbitrators but does not specify the “seat”, then on what basis and by which principle, the parties have to decide the place of “seat” for determining the applicability of laws of a particular country for deciding the post award arbitration proceedings – Held: Though, the question regarding the “seat” and “venue” for holding arbitration proceedings by the arbitrators arising under the Arbitration Agreement/International Commercial Arbitration Agreement is primarily required to be decided keeping in view the terms of the arbitration agreement itself, but having regard to the law laid down by Supreme Court in several decisions, this is a fit case to exercise power under Or.VI, r.2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and to refer to a larger Bench – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or.VI, r.2.
Directing the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting appropriate Bench, the Court HELD: 1.1 Though, the question regarding the “seat” and “venue” for holding arbitration proceedings by the arbitrators arising under the Arbitration Agreement/International Commercial Arbitration Agreement is primarily required to be decided keeping in view the terms of the arbitration agreement itself, but having regard to the law laid down by this Court in several decisions by the Benches of variable strength, and further taking into consideration the submissions urged by the counsels for the parties and also keeping in view the issues involved in the appeal, which frequently arise in International Commercial Arbitration matters, this is a fit case to exercise power under Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and refer this case (appeal) to be dealt with by the larger Bench of this Court for its hearing. [Para 23][670-A-C]
National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Co. and Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 551 : [1992] 3 SCR 106 ; Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. and Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 305 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 186 ; Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 479 : [1999] 1 SCR 89 ; Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 105 : [2002] 2 SCR 411 ; Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 190 : [2008] 1 SCR
501 ; Indtel Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 308 : [2008] 12 SCR 673 ; Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohan Das & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 313 : [2009] 5 SCR 118 ; Citation Infowares Ltd. v. Equinox Corporation (2009) 7 SCC 220 : [2009] 6 SCR 737 ; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ferro Concrete Construction (P) Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR
31 ; Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 161 : [2011] 8 SCR 569 ; Dozco India Private Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Limited (2011) 6 SCC 179 : [2010] 12 SCR 259 ; Yograj Infrastructure Limited v. Ssang Yong Engineering and Construction Co. Limited (2011) 9 SCC 735 : [2011]
14 SCR 301 ; Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC (2012) 9 SCC 552 : [2012] 12 SCR 327 ; Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Enercon GMBH & Anr. (2014) 5 SCC 1 : [2014] 2 SCR
855 ; Reliance Industries Limited and Anr. v. Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 603 : [2014] 6 SCR 456 ; Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd. & Anr. (2015) 9 SCC 172 : [2015] 2 SCR 697 ; Union of India v. Reliance Industries and Ors. (2015) 10 SCC
213 : [2015] 10 SCR 85 ; Bharat Aluminum Company v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services INC (2016) 4 SCC 126 : [2016] 1 SCR 364 ; Eitzen Bulk A/S & Ors. v. Ashapur Minechem Ltd. & Anr. (2016) 11 SCC 508 : [2016] 2 SCR 634 ; Imax Corporation v. E-City Entertainment(India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 331 : [2017] 4 SCR 833 ; Roger Shashoua and Ors. v. Mukesh Sharma & Ors. (2017) 14 SCC 722 – referred to.
Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. v. Compania Internacional De Seguros Del Peru (1988) (1) Lloyd’s Law Reports 116 ; Hiscox v. Outhwaite (1992) 1 AC
562 ; Union of India vs. McDonnell Douglas Corpn. (1993) 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep. 48 ; C v. D (2007) EWCA Civ 1282 (CA); C v. D (2008) 1 Lloyd’s Law Rep 239 ; Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Limited v. Alfred McAlpine Business Services Limited (2008) EWHC 426 (TCC) ; Shashoua and Ors. v. Sharma (2009) EWHC
957 (Comm.) ; Sulamerica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. & Or s. v. Enesa Engenhar i a SA & Or s. (2012) EWCA Civ 638 ; (1) Enercon GMBH (2) (India) Ltd. (2012) EWHC 3711 (Comm Wobben Properties GMBH v. Enercon); Govt. of India v. Petrocon India Ltd. (2016) SCC Online MYFC 35 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.