In Brief
The Supreme Court addressed whether Indian courts have jurisdiction to hear a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to an award in a dispute where the arbitration agreement specified a venue (Kuala Lumpur) but did not expressly determine the juridical seat. Holding that determination of the seat requires an affirmative act and clear expression of opinion by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court found that mere sittings at a location and signing the award there does not constitute such determination. Since the seat remained undetermined, there was no implied exclusion of Part I of the Act, and Indian courts retained jurisdiction to hear the challenge. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the High Court."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.