In Brief
A company incorporated in India entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with a Hong Kong company for exclusive distribution rights. The agreement stated that disputes would be 'referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong' with 'the place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong', but the substantive law was Indian law. When disputes arose, India sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of the arbitration agreement established Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration, not merely a venue. Consequently, Part-I of the Act (including Section 11) did not apply. Indian courts lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator; the petitioner must approach the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.