Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. To butress the said argument, reliance was placed on Citation Infowares Ltd. (Supra). In that case, being an application under Section 11 (9) of the Act for appointment of the arbitrator in an agreement of International Commercial Arbitration, the parties had agreed to the governing law being of California, USA. The senior counsel contended that notwithstanding the agreement as to the governing law, the Supreme Court held on the basis of Bhatia International that Part-I of the Act would be applicable and appointed the arbitrator. However, in my opinion Citation Infowares Ltd. does not help the petitioner. The Supreme Court in this case also in para 25 of the judgment reiterated that the law of arbitration is normally the same as the proper law of the contract and it is only in exceptional cases that it is not so, even where the proper law of contract is expressly chosen by the parties; it was further held that there is a presumption that the law of the country where the arbitration is agreed to be held is the proper law of arbitration (NTPC Vs. Singer Company (1992) 3 SCC 551). However, in spite of reiterating the said proposition, the Supreme Court in this case held the application under Section 11 (9) of the Act OMP No.508/2009 Page 7 of 13 to be maintainable because the parties had in that case not agreed to the venue of arbitration. On this ground, the NTPC case (Supra) was distinguished and the arbitrator appointed, though to decide in accordance with the Californian law.

In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the argument of the respondent to the effect that the law laid down in NTPC case, (1992) 3 SCC 551 would govern the field. Even otherwise it is difficult to accept the contention that NTPC case can clinch the issue. In para 23 of NTPC case the Court undoubtedly expressed a view about the presumption arising that the law of the country where arbitration is agreed to be held is the proper law of arbitration. But the scope of the expressions in para 23 of NTPC case must be held to be limited. There may be a presumption where the parties have agreed to hold arbitration in a particular country. In that circumstance, the presumption would arise that the law of the country where the arbitration is agreed to be held would apply as the law of contract. Where there has been no specific expression about the law of contract, the situation is otherwise. Here the substantive law of contract governing the contract is specifically agreed upon. However, there is no agreement in respect of the law governing the procedure of arbitration. The place where arbitration would be held is not to be found in the language of Clause 10.1. Therefore the situation in NTPC case is not applicable to the present case.