Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals arising from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing a petition filed by Konkola Copper Mines (PLC), a Zambian company, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition sought interim measures after the making of a partial final arbitral award by an arbitral tribunal constituted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), but before enforcement under Section 36. The contracts between the appellant (Konkola Copper Mines) and the respondent (Stewarts and Lloyds of India Limited) were entered into on 10 and 18 August 2006 for the supply of rubber lined steel pipes for a plant in Zambia. Clause 24 of the General Conditions of Contract provided for arbitration under the ICC Rules. The Learned Single Judge held that Part-I of the Act was intended to be excluded by the parties and that jurisdiction could not be conferred on the court merely because both parties agreed that the venue/place of arbitration shall be at Mumbai for convenience. Both parties appealed, aggrieved by the determination that Part-I has no application. The court adopted the description of parties as in Appeal (L) 199 of 2013. The core legal issue is whether Part-I of the Act applies to an international commercial arbitration where the parties have chosen Mumbai as the venue for convenience but the arbitration is governed by ICC Rules and the substantive law is not Indian law. The court's analysis focused on the intention of the parties to exclude Part-I and the significance of the venue clause. The decision upheld the Single Judge's finding that Part-I does not apply, thereby dismissing the appeals.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - International Commercial Arbitration - Applicability of Part-I of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - The court considered whether Part-I applies to an international commercial arbitration where the parties agreed that the venue/place of arbitration shall be at Mumbai for convenience, but the arbitration is governed by ICC Rules and the substantive law is not Indian law. The court held that Part-I was intended to be excluded by the parties and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the court merely because both parties agree that the venue/place of arbitration shall be at Mumbai for the sake of convenience. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to an international commercial arbitration where the parties have chosen Mumbai as the venue for convenience but the arbitration is governed by ICC Rules and the substantive law is not Indian law.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed. The court upheld the Single Judge's finding that Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has no application to the arbitration.
Law Points
- Part-I of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 9
- Section 36
- International Commercial Arbitration
- Exclusion of Part-I by parties
- Venue vs Seat
- Jurisdiction of Indian courts
