Summary
London was the juridical seat under the parties’ agreement providing for London as venue and ICC arbitration, and Indian courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 challenge. The Court applied implied exclusion under the pre-BALCO framework and affirmed the acceptance of the Shashoua principle in BALCO and Enercon.
Issues
- Whether London was merely a hearing venue or the juridical seat excluding Indian supervisory jurisdiction.
- Whether prior recourse to Indian courts waived the jurisdiction objection.
Provisions considered
- Part I and Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996For this pre-BALCO agreement, the contract and applicable seat principles established implied exclusion of Part I and absence of Indian annulment jurisdiction. (¶¶ 5–8, 65–72)
Held
- The seat/venue distinction remains, but the whole clause and surrounding indicia determine the result. London venue, ICC rules and no contrary seat indication here designated London as juridical seat; Indian substantive governing law did not reverse that conclusion. (¶¶ 42–50, 65–71)
- BALCO and Enercon accepted the Shashoua principle. Its origin in anti-suit proceedings did not defeat the binding principle adopted by this Court, and the per-incuriam challenge to Enercon failed. (¶ 50–59)
- Parties cannot confer inherent jurisdiction by consent or earlier filing. Recourse to Indian courts therefore did not create jurisdiction otherwise absent. (¶ 60–64)
Result
Appeals allowed; Delhi High Court judgment asserting Indian jurisdiction and allocating the Section 34 forum to Delhi set aside. No costs.