Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 1996
Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs Airvisual Limited on 5 March, 2020
54. The aforesaid test was approvingly applied by this Court in Mankastu Impex
Private Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 399 and it was held that
where the reference to a place in the arbitration agreement is not simply as "venue"
and rather a reference as place for final resolution by arbitration, such place shall be
construed as the seat of arbitration. The relevant observations read as under:--
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
72. Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that the
present petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable as neither the
seat of arbitration is India nor is the arbitration agreement governed by laws of
India. (emphasis added)
11 . It may be profitable to remembered at this stage the law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs.
International Airport Authority of India reported in (1979)3 SCC489 to the
effect that contractual terms must be given their due meaning and cannot be
rendered redundant or superfluous. The Courts must ensure that the words
used in the agreement, being part of a formal document, are accorded their
full significance. In the present case, clause 16 provides for the jurisdiction
of the court. If the contention of the counsel for the applicant is accepted then
the seat of arbitration will have to be treated at Indore and if this is done then
this will render sub-clause (a) of clause 16 as redundant as there will be
nothing to agitate for at Haridwar.
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Roger Shashoua vs Mukesh Sharma on 4 July, 2017
Interestingly, although this Court
deliberately did not address whether seat is to be determined based on the closest
connection with the law governing the arbitration agreement or the curial law since
in the facts of the said case both the law governing the contract and the curial law
were the same, yet this Court approvingly referred to two other decisions in Roger
Shashoua (1) v. Sharma, [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm) and Sulamérica Cia Nacional
de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engelharia SA, [2013] 1 WLR 102 (CA) wherein the seat
of arbitration was construed on the basis of the curial law. The relevant observations
read as under:--
Bgs Sgs Soma Jv vs Nhpc Ltd. on 10 December, 2019
13. Similarly, in the case of Arif Azim (supra) not only that the ratio of
BGS case was reiterated but it was further held that merely because the
parties have stipulated a venue without any express choice of seat, the courts
cannot sideline the specific choices made by the parties in the arbitration
agreement. It was further held that deference has to be shown to each and
every choice and stipulations made by the parties, it is the duty of the court
to give weight and due consideration to each choice made by the parties and
to construe the arbitration agreement in a manner that aligns the most with
such stipulations and intentions. Keeping in mind this mandate of law, a
perusal of the heading of clause 16 would show that it provides for Disputes,
Arbitration and Court Jurisdiction. Significantly, in both sub-clauses i.e. (a)
and (b) word 'dispute' has been used and in sub-clause (a) it has clearly been
mentioned that 'all disputes subject to Court at Haridwar only", intention of
the parties is clear by this, a clear choice of conferring jurisdiction to courts
at Haridwar has been provided. This cannot be brushed away by a casual
argument that courts at Haridwar are conferred jurisdiction for all disputes
but not for arbitration. This will, as stated above, render sub-clause (a) as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 11/4/2025
2:32:39 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25905
15 AC-45-2025
redundant which certainly is not the intention of the parties.
1