Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Bhatia International vs Bulk Trading S. A. & Anr on 13 March, 2002
Vs. Equinox Corporation [(2009) 7 SCC 220], would
have no application once the parties agreed by
virtue of Clause 27.1 of the Agreement that the
arbitration proceedings would be conducted in
Singapore, i.e., the seat of arbitration would be
in Singapore, in accordance with the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre Rules as in force
39
at the time of signing of the Agreement. As
noticed hereinabove, Rule 32 of the SIAC Rules
provides that the law of arbitration would be the
International Arbitration Act, 2002, where the seat
of arbitration is in Singapore. Although, it was
pointed out on behalf of the appellant that in Rule
1.1 it had been stated that if any of the SIAC
Rules was in conflict with the mandatory provision
of the applicable law of the arbitration, from
which the parties could not derogate, the said
mandatory provision would prevail, such is not the
case as far as the present proceedings are
concerned. In the instant case, Section 2(2) of
the 1996 Act, in fact, indicates that Part I would
apply only in cases where the seat of arbitration
is in India. This Court in Bhatia International
(supra), while considering the said provision, held
that in certain situations the provision of Part I
of the aforesaid Act would apply even when the seat
of arbitration was not in India. In the instant
40
case, once the parties had specifically agreed that
the arbitration proceedings would be conducted in
accordance with the SIAC Rules, which includes Rule
32, the decision in Bhatia International and the
subsequent decisions on the same lines, would no
longer apply in the instant case where the parties
had willingly agreed to be governed by the SIAC
Rules.
Venture Global Engineering vs Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr on 10 January, 2008
38. Having agreed to the above, it was no longer
available to the appellant to contend that the
"proper law" of the agreement would apply to the
arbitration proceedings. The decision in Bhatia
International Vs. Bulk Trading S.A. [(2002) 4 SCC
105], which was applied subsequently in the case of
Venture Global Engg. Vs. Satyam Computer Services
Ltd. [(2008) 4 SCC 190] and Citation Infowares Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd vs Ongc Ltd. & Ors on 4 December, 1997
Mr. Routray submitted that as observed by this
Court in Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. ONGC
Ltd. & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 305], the Curial law,
besides determining the procedural powers and
duties of the Arbitrators, would also determine
what judicial remedies are available to the
parties, who wished to apply for security for costs
or for discovery or who wished to challenge the
Award once it had been rendered and before it was
enforced.
National Thermal Power Corporation vs Singer Company And Ors on 7 May, 1992
29. Mr. Routray urged that by virtue of Clause 27
of the Agreement dated 13th August, 2006, and by
accepting the SIAC Rules, the parties had agreed
that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, would not apply to the arbitration
proceedings taking place in Singapore. According
to Mr. Routray, the said decision was reiterated in
32
the Terms of Reference that the arbitration
proceedings would be governed by the laws of
Singapore. Mr. Routray further urged that even in
the decision relied upon by the appellant in the
case of Bhatia International, this Court had held
that parties by agreement, express or implied,
could exclude all or any of the provisions of Part
I of the 1996 Act. Consequently, in Bhatia
International this Court had held that exclusion of
Part I of the 1996 Act could be by virtue of the
Rules chosen by the parties to govern the
arbitration proceedings.