In Brief
Imax Corporation and E-City Entertainment entered into a commercial agreement with an arbitration clause providing for disputes to be settled "pursuant to the ICC Rules of Arbitration" under Singapore law, but without specifying the seat of arbitration. When a dispute arose, the ICC fixed London as the seat of arbitration after consulting both parties. The Arbitral Tribunal made three awards in London. E-City subsequently filed a petition under Section 34 of India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Bombay High Court to challenge the awards. The Supreme Court held that because the parties agreed to ICC Rules (which permit the ICC to determine the seat) and the seat was factually established at London outside India, Part-I of the Indian Arbitration Act was excluded. Therefore, Indian courts lack jurisdiction to entertain challenges; the arbitration was governed by English law. The appeal was allowed and the petition dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.