Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

PASL V. GE: Indian Parties’ Fillip to Foreign-seated Arbitrations, but at What Cost?

PASL V. GE: Indian Parties’ Fillip to Foreign-seated Arbitrations, but at What Cost? Can two Indian parties elect a foreign seat of arbitration? This question has been the epicentre of a long-standing divergence in judicial opinions across Indian courts. However, this divergence was put to rest by the Supreme Court of India in PASL Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) (P) Ltd. (decision of 20 April 2021), ruling in favour of Indian-parties’ autonomy to elect a foreign-seat of arbitration. Recognizing party autonomy as the “brooding spirit” of arbitration, the Supreme Court overruled two judgments of the Bombay High Court (Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. v. Sah Petroleums Ltd and Addhar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Jagdamba Agrico Exports Pvt. Ltd.) for not understanding the law (on foreign seated arbitrations between Indian parties) in its correct perspective. Further, it clarified that the term ‘international commercial arbitration’ (in the proviso to section 2(2) of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) was ‘party-centric’, in the context of section 2(1)(f) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the other hand, the same term, when seen in the context of section 44 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was qualified as ‘place-centric’. This note considers the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s approach in reaching these conclusions, identifying and addressing significant gaps and ambiguities that arise therefrom. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asian International Arbitration Journal Kluwer Law International

PASL V. GE: Indian Parties’ Fillip to Foreign-seated Arbitrations, but at What Cost?

Sumant Kolhe, Varad
Asian International Arbitration Journal , Volume 17 (2): 16 – Oct 1, 2021
Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/pasl-v-ge-indian-parties-fillip-to-foreign-seated-arbitrations-but-at-5srhCL9u0M

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
ISSN
1574-3330
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Can two Indian parties elect a foreign seat of arbitration? This question has been the epicentre of a long-standing divergence in judicial opinions across Indian courts. However, this divergence was put to rest by the Supreme Court of India in PASL Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) (P) Ltd. (decision of 20 April 2021), ruling in favour of Indian-parties’ autonomy to elect a foreign-seat of arbitration. Recognizing party autonomy as the “brooding spirit” of arbitration, the Supreme Court overruled two judgments of the Bombay High Court (Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. v. Sah Petroleums Ltd and Addhar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Jagdamba Agrico Exports Pvt. Ltd.) for not understanding the law (on foreign seated arbitrations between Indian parties) in its correct perspective. Further, it clarified that the term ‘international commercial arbitration’ (in the proviso to section 2(2) of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) was ‘party-centric’, in the context of section 2(1)(f) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the other hand, the same term, when seen in the context of section 44 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was qualified as ‘place-centric’. This note considers the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s approach in reaching these conclusions, identifying and addressing significant gaps and ambiguities that arise therefrom.

Journal

Asian International Arbitration Journal – Kluwer Law International

Published: Oct 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.