Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 14

Production Sharing Contract - Arbitration - Apex Court has already determined both that the juridical seat of the arbitration is at London and that the arbitration agreement is governed by English law - This being the case, it is not open to the Union of India to argue that Part-I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be applicable - Section 14 application made under Part-I would consequently not be maintainable.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 14

Production Sharing Contract - Arbitration -Jurisdiction - Res judicata - Attempt to reopen a question settled twice over, that is by dismissal of both a review petition and a curative petition on the very ground - Plea that res judicata would not attach to questions relating to jurisdiction - Held that the effect of clause 34.2 of the PSC raises at best a mixed question of fact and law and not a pure question of jurisdiction unrelated to facts - Therefore, both on grounds of res judicata as well as the law laid down in the judgment dated 28.5.2014, this application under Section 14 deserves to be dismissed - It is also an abuse of the process of the Court as it is only after moving under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and getting an adverse judgment from the Permanent Court of Arbitration dated 10.06.2024 that the present application was filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act two days later i.e. on 12.6.2024 - Viewed from any angle Delhi High Court judgment is correct and consequently this Special Leave Petition liable to be dismissed.

Topic(s)-Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Res Judicata not applicable