In Brief
BGS SGS SOMA JV challenged a High Court order holding that appeals were maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order returning a Section 34 petition for presentation to another court. The key issues were: (1) whether such appeals are maintainable under Section 37, and (2) whether New Delhi or Faridabad is the juridical seat of arbitration. The Supreme Court held that orders merely returning applications for presentation to the proper court are not orders 'refusing to set aside an award' and thus appeals under Section 37 are not maintainable. On the seat question, applying the Shashoua principle, the Court declared that where a place is designated for 'arbitration proceedings', that place is the juridical seat and confers exclusive jurisdiction on courts at that seat. Since proceedings occurred in New Delhi, New Delhi was the seat. The Court disapproved the Hardy Exploration judgment as contradicting BALCO principles.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.