दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने फैसला सुनाया दो भारतीय दलों विवाचन खंड में इस बात से सहमत कर सकते हैं मध्यस्थता की एक विदेशी सीट के लिए कि, अर्थात. भारत से बाहर.
दो भारतीय पार्टियों, Doosan भारत और जीएमआर छत्तीसगढ़ एनर्जी लिमिटेड एक के विकास के बारे में एक अनुबंध में प्रवेश किया 1350 मेगावाट कोयला छत्तीसगढ़ में थर्मल पावर प्लांट निकाल दिया. The arbitration clause provided that the disputes will be resolved by arbitration under the rules of the Singapore International Arbitral Centre (SIAC). Singapore was designated as the place of arbitration.
Doosan India submitted the notice of arbitration under the SIAC नियम. The respondent made a request to the Delhi High Court to restrain Doosan India from initiating or continuing or proceeding with the SIAC arbitration proceedings against it.
The Delhi High Court was asked to decide whether these SIAC arbitration proceedings would fall under Part I (पंचाट) or Part II (Enforcement of certain foreign awards) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
The respondent argued that the Delhi High Court should apply the Indian Arbitration Act as the law of the seat of the arbitration because “the parties to the arbitration being Indian entities, the arbitration cannot be construed to be an international commercial arbitration under Section 2 (1) (च) पंचाट अधिनियम की" तथा "the parties being Indian, choice if at all of a foreign seat for arbitration is in contravention of Section 28 of the Contract Act and fourthly, in case the arbitration is seated in Singapore the same would amount to derogation of the Indian substantive law, hence not permissible." (के लिए. 22.1)
The Court rejected the Respondent’s arguments. प्रथम, it found that “an arbitration agreement is an independent self-contained agreement not dependant on the substantive agreement, therefore irrespective of the contractual rights and obligations parties can opt for an international arbitration", which complies with section 28 of the Contract Act (के लिए. 22.9). For this reason, the Court thus confirmed that, irrespective of the parties’ substantive rights and obligations under the contract, Indian parties were free to choose a foreign seat of arbitration.
Andrian Beregoi, Aceris कानून LLC