Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in IMAX Corporation vs. M/S E-CITY Entertainment, has held that Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, has no application in a case where parties chose and agreed to the arbitration being conducted outside India and the arbitration was in fact held outside India. A bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Ashok Bhushan was considering an appeal against the Bombay High Court order wherein it had held that petition to set aside an arbitral award in an arbitral proceedings held in London is maintainable before a court in India. The Court observed that, in the instant case, the parties expressly agreed that the arbitration will be conducted according to the ICC Rules of Arbitration and left the place of arbitration to be chosen by the ICC. “The relationship between the seat of arbitration and the law governing arbitration is an integral one. The seat of arbitration is defined as the juridical eat of arbitration designated by the parties, or by th...

High Court of Delhi National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited MANU/DE/2834/2016 19.10.2016 Arbitration Once the parties have approached certain court for relief under Arbitration Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings Present application filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking to explain delay of 296 days in filing Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to challenge Award dated 24th February, 2015 of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) in disputes between NHAI and Respondent, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd + SIPL (HSCL) arising out of a contract dated 18th July, 2005 for construction of a four lane highway. It is stated by NHAI that it received a copy of the Award dated 24th February, 2015 only on 27th February, 2015 by courier and that was the date from which the period of limitation for the purpo...