Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Wednesday, 05 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2020-03-05 dismissed

MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED vs AIRVISUAL LIMITED

Bench: 3 — R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy

In Brief

Mankastu Impex, an Indian air quality product distributor, entered a Memorandum of Understanding with AirVisual Limited (Hong Kong) to exclusively distribute its air quality monitors in India. When AirVisual was acquired by IQAir AG, which refused to honour the original terms, Mankastu sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the arbitration agreement specified Hong Kong as the place where disputes would be 'finally resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong', Hong Kong is the juridical seat of arbitration, not India. Consequently, Part-I of the Indian Arbitration Act does not apply, and Indian courts lack jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators. The court clarified that the substantive law (Indian law) and curial law (law of the seat) are distinct matters.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Law International Commercial Arbitration Seat of Arbitration Jurisdiction Section 11 of Arbitration Act

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login