MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED versus AIRVISUAL LIMITED

MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED versus AIRVISUAL LIMITED

Clause 17.2 of the MoU stating disputes "shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong" and "The place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong" indicates the parties agreed the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong, thus the arbitration is an international commercial arbitration seated outside India and Section 11 has no application; therefore the petition under Section 11(6) is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Mankastu Impex Private Limited; Respondent: AirVisual Limited; Proposed Respondent: IQAir AG
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Petition (civil) No. 32 of 2018 / Petition Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for Appointment of Sole Arbitrator
Outcome
Petition under Section 11(6) dismissed
Legal Topics
Seat of Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Interim Relief, Applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, Appointment of Arbitrator, Choice of Law
Arbitration International Commercial Arbitration Conflict of Laws Seat of Arbitration Jurisdiction Interim Relief Applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act Appointment of Arbitrator +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mankastu Impex Private Limited

Petitioner

AirVisual Limited

Respondent

IQAir AG

Proposed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Petition (civil) No. 32 of 2018 / Petition Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for Appointment of Sole Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seat of arbitration is in Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India
  3. 3 Whether Indian courts can appoint an arbitrator or exercise supervisory jurisdiction/interim relief when the seat of arbitration is outside India

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 17.2 of the MoU stating disputes "shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong" and "The place of arbitration shall be Hong Kong" indicates the parties agreed the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong, thus the arbitration is an international commercial arbitration seated outside India and Section 11 has no application; therefore the petition under Section 11(6) is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition under Section 11(6) dismissed

Orders

  • Arbitration Petition No.32 of 2018 dismissed.
  • Petitioner permitted to approach Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre for appointment of arbitrator, if they so desire.