India – Arbitration Update

by | Jul 6, 2023

In the recent ruling of Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. v. SBW Electro Mechanics Import Export Corporation (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1583), the Calcutta High Court (HC), in deciding the validity of an arbitration clause, has held that the venue of the arbitral proceedings must be considered as the seat, in the absence of any significant contrary indicia in the agreement. 

In this case, the arbitration clause of the contract specified that all disputes would be settled in accordance with the provisions of “International Arbitration laws,” and the venue of the arbitration would be Singapore.  In legal parlance, as there is no such thing as “International Arbitration laws,” there was ambiguity as to the seat of the arbitration. 

The HC highlighted the fact that the agreement provided for arbitral proceedings to be held in Singapore, which indicated that the parties intended for the arbitral proceedings to be at a particular place.  In the absence of other contrary indicia and combined with a supernational body of rules governing the arbitration, the HC took the view that the venue would also be the juridical seat of the arbitral proceedings.

The HC referred to the Supreme Court ruling in BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited ((2020) 4 SCC 234) and discussed the contrasting language of arbitration clauses.

In conclusion, the importance of clearly drafting an arbitration clause in a transactional document cannot be underscored more, and contracting parties should separately define the seat and the venue of the arbitration to avoid litigation on this issue.  

More News

The Legal 500 2024 Rankings

We are pleased to share that our firm has been recognised for its work across practice areas by The Legal 500 (Legalease) in their 2024 rankings. Firm Rankings Antitrust and Competition Corporate and M&A Data Protection Dispute Resolution: Litigation Intellectual...

read more

“Workman” interpreted under Indian employment law

In the recent case of Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., the Bombay High Court held that an IT analyst did not qualify as a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as his day-to-day responsibilities were supervisory in nature, and his...

read more

EXL deemed not to have a PE in India

Last week, in the EXL Service.Com, Inc. case, the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) followed the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Formula One and E-Funds cases and, inter alia, held that a US taxpayer does not have a fixed place permanent establishment...

read more