24 Sep Judgment On Arbitration Agreement
The case was then referred to a bank of three Supreme Court justices in the case of Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Incorporated. v. Hindustan Copper Limited, (2017) 2 SCC 228, in which the Supreme Court held that the settlement of disputes or disputes through a two-stage arbitration procedure, as provided for in the contract between the parties, was permitted by Indian law. However, at a later stage, it left open the question whether the arbitral award rendered in the London arbitration proceedings, that of a foreign arbitral award of 29 September 2001, in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Arbitration Act, can be enforced? The arbitration clause states that, in the event that the parties have not reached an amicable settlement on a dispute within 30 days, each party may initiate an abu Dhabi-based arbitration procedure, in English and in accordance with the abu Dhabi Conciliation & Arbitration Centre rules. The Court of Appeal. As we discussed at the time, the Court of Appeal (Popplewell, Flaux and Males LJJ) unanimously granted Enka`s appeal in May 2020 and ruled that English law regulated the arbitration agreement. The court upheld its supervisory jurisdiction and also issued the publication ban against the appeals. The Court held that, in accordance with English law, the choice of the seat of the parties is based on the presumption that the law of the Curia governs the validity and extent of the arbitration agreement. The Court also held that the separation of the arbitration agreement meant that a choice of law in the main contract did not automatically extend to the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the principle of separation did not preclude the application of a choice provision in the main contract to the arbitration agreement. Clearly, a legal provision applicable in the main contract applies to all clauses of the agreement, including the arbitration clause. Supreme court.
At first instance, Baker J dismissed Enka`s appeal on the ground that the English court did not have jurisdiction for reasons related to the Forum non conveniens. The judge refused to determine the current legislation of the arbitration agreement, but noted that it was “highly questionable” whether Russian law was applicable. The Delhi Supreme Court has ruled on the effectiveness of several arbitration proceedings under the same treaty that give rise to a large number of proceedings, and their subsequent implications for arbitral arbitrations. . . .