AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 2438 ::2016 (3) AJR 530 ::(2016) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 135 ::(2016) 3 ArbiLR 98 ::2016 (11) SCC 508 ::(2016) 3 RecCivR 448 ::(2016) 5 Scale 514 ::AIR 2016 SC (Civil) 1835 ::(2017) 120 All LR 34 ::(2016) 3 All WC 3154 ::(2016) 4 Mad LJ 546 ::(2016) 4 KCCR 434 ::(2016) 164 AllIndCas 134 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, S. A. Bobde , JJ

Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996) , S.34 Part I, S.42— Applicability - @page-SC2439Under Clause of Charter agreement parties chosen London as seat of arbitration - Further provided that Arbitration shall be governed by English Law - It shows clear intention to exclude applicability of Part I of Act to such arbitration - Therefore, award debtor would not be entitled to challenge Award in said proceedings by raising objections before Courts in India. In the instant case the parties under Charter agreement chose to exclude the application of Part I to the Arbitration proceedings between them by choosing London as the venue for Arbitration and by making English law applicable to Arbitration. Where the parties choose a juridical seat of Arbitration outside India and provide that the law which governs Arbitration will be a law other than Indian law, Part I of the Act would not have any application. Therefore, the award debtor would not be entitled to challenge the award by raising objections under S. 34 before a Court India. A Court in India could not have jurisdiction to entertain such objections under S. 34 in such a case.(Para 27 28 29 30) .....