Q: Delineate international commercial arbitration ?
Ans: There was a requirement of international arbitration for the matters of international dispute and hence international commercial arbitration was introduced by UNCITRAL Model law on international commercial arbitration which was adopted in 1985.
The Geneva Convention 1927 and New York Convention 1958 was also introduced for international commercial arbitration.
The New York Convention was established as a result of dissatisfaction with the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923 and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927.
In international arbitration, one party must be of foreign country.
Bharti International Vs. Bulk trading, 2002, the honorable Supreme Court held rules against domestic law can be eliminated.
Parties outside India will not get interim relief by court except in specific circumstances.
Under the Bhatia Regime, all the provisions of part 1 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 were to be applicable to all Arbitration whether domestic or foreign seated unless the party by agreement, expressed or implied had excluded wholly or partly, the provisions of part 1 of this act.
It was overruled by honourable Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminum Company Vs. Kaiser Technical Services, 2012.
Facts:
1.An agreement was made on 22 April 1993, between BALCO and Kaiser, under which it was stated that Kaiser has to supply and install a computer at the BALCO's premises.
2. According to the arbitration agreement, if any kind of dispute arises, the proceedings will be held in London under English law. Further, the agreement says that governing law under the agreement will be Indian law. But the arbitration proceeding will still be held under English law.
Judgement
The court ruled that Part 1 of the law does not apply to instances in which the arbitration occurs outside of India. It will only apply to arbitrations in which India is the seat of the, arbitration. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement could only be governed by English law. In light of this, the court likewise dismissed the section 34 applications while upholding the high court's ruling.
Comments
Post a Comment