ROGER SHASHOUA & OTHERS versus MUKESH SHARMA & OTHERS

ROGER SHASHOUA & OTHERS versus MUKESH SHARMA & OTHERS

The agreement having been interpreted by English courts as providing London as the seat of arbitration, and the Supreme Court having accepted the principle that the seat confers exclusive jurisdiction, the courts in India have no jurisdiction. Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Roger Shashoua & Others; Respondent: Mukesh Sharma & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / From High Court Judgment/order; Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement Interpretation, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (part I Vs Part Ii), Territorial Jurisdiction in Arbitration Proceedings
Arbitration Conflict of Laws Arbitration Agreement Interpretation Jurisdiction Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (part I Vs Part Ii) Territorial Jurisdiction in Arbitration Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Shashoua & Others

Appellant

Mukesh Sharma & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / From High Court Judgment/order; Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Part I or Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the arbitration agreement in question.
  2. 2 Whether courts in India have jurisdiction to entertain objections under Section 34 of the Act in relation to a foreign-seated arbitration.
  3. 3 Interpretation of arbitration agreement clauses, specifically regarding 'seat' and 'venue' of arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement having been interpreted by English courts as providing London as the seat of arbitration, and the Supreme Court having accepted the principle that the seat confers exclusive jurisdiction, the courts in India have no jurisdiction. Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court of Delhi holding that courts in India have jurisdiction is set aside.
  • Determination that Gautam Budh Nagar has no jurisdiction is set aside.