Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
|
Head Note
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9
'Court' - Competent court - Determination of - Production Sharing Contract (PSC) executed between respondent no. 1 and a consortium of four companies (contractor) - Disputes referred to arbitral tribunal - Tribunal fixed hearing at Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) but due to outbreak of epidemic SARS arbitral tribunal shifted venue of its sittings to London - Some proceedings were held by arbitral tribunal at London - Respondents requested the tribunal to conduct remaining proceedings at Kuala Lumpur itself - Request was rejected - Respondents filed petition under Section 9 in Delhi High Court for stay of arbitral proceedings which was objected to on its maintainability on the ground that courts in India do not have jurisdiction to entertain challenge to the award - Single Judge overruled the objection and held that said High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 9 of the Act - Held, further that in terms of Clause 34.12 of PSC seat of arbitration was Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) - Neither there was any agreement between parties to PSC to shift juridical seat of arbitration from Kuala Lumpur to London nor any written instrument was signed by them for amending Clause 34.12 - Mere fact that parties to particular arbitration had agreed for shifting of seat of arbitration to London cannot be interpreted as anything except physical change of venue of arbitration from Kuala Lumpur to London - Under English Arbitration Act, 1996 seat of arbitration means juridical seat of arbitration - No provision in English Arbitration Act under which arbitral tribunal could change juridical seat of arbitration - Held that, mere change in physical venue of hearing from Kuala Lumpur to London did not amount to change in juridical seat of arbitration - Appeal allowed.
Topic(s)-