Research and Articles
Hotline
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
December 20, 2018India: Supreme Court settles the "seat" vs "venue" debate
This article was originally published in the December 2018 edition of
International Arbitration Law Review
BRIEF INTRODUCTION:
In this article, we discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Union of India v Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc., Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2018. The Supreme Court of India was faced with the question of which laws would be applicable to post-award arbitration proceedings when the parties have agreed upon only the "venue" of arbitration and not the "seat" of arbitration. The Court interpreted the arbitration agreement between the parties and the reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 to determine the seat of arbitration.
For complete article, please click here.