Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court says that the seat of the arbitration is to be determined based on arbitral proceedings and not with cause of action for underlying disputes.
“The basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution is that any action of the State must be non-arbitrary in essence and substance. It is the heartbeat of fair play and State actions are amenable to judicial review to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically.”
“As per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of arbitration.”
Delhi High Court: While observing that the role of ICADR Rules shall come into play with regard to the procedure to be
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Tashi Rabstan, J., while addressing the syllogistic issue of ‘venue and ‘seat’ of arbitration dismissed
by Hiroo Advani†, Sheikh Yusuf Ali †† and Manav Nagpal†††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 30
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., declined to exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a petition filed under Section
Supreme Court: The Bench of RK Agrawal and AM Sapre, JJ has referred the question as to determination of the “seat” and