Introduction The Indian jurisprudence on the choice of the law of arbitration has evolved through various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India has cited approvingly in BALCO’s Case[1] and several later judgments[2], the judgments delivered by Lord Justice Longmore in C v. D[3] and Mr. Justice Cooke in Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA…
It is not very uncommon to come across conflicting “place of arbitration” and “exclusive jurisdiction” clauses. One may find that the parties expressly designate the place/ seat of arbitration to be at ‘X’ but also provide for separately an exclusive jurisdiction on civil courts at place ‘Y’ to decide disputes arising out of the contract. Sometimes, such conflicting clauses…
The three judgments of the Supreme Court in quick succession namely Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC[1] (in short “Hardy’s Case”), Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. vs Kamachi Industries Ltd[2] (Brahmani’s Case) and the most recent BGS SGS SOMA JV v NHPC Pvt Ltd[3] (BGS’s Case), underscore the significance of identifying the “juridical seat” in an…
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, Advocates are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. This website is not an attempt to advertise or solicit clients, and does not seek to create or invite any lawyer-client relationship. The information provided here about the ‘Practice Areas’ is for general informational purposes only and is at the specific request of user.
This website contains information on legal issues and is not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction. The user may further note that Mr. Somiran Sharma, his associates or his office bearers are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on any contents in this website. If you have any legal issues, you must seek independent legal advice.
