VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Where the arbitration agreement stipulates that the seat of arbitration is Kuala Lumpur and is governed by English law, and there is no written instrument amending this, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded by agreement. Therefore, Indian courts do not have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings under Section 9. Mere change in venue does not alter the juridical seat.

Parties
Appellant: Videocon Industries Ltd.; Respondent No.1: Union of India; Respondent No.2: Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (through its arm)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Delhi High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; petition under Section 9 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration Agreement, Seat of Arbitration, Applicable Law
Arbitration Commercial Law Jurisdiction International Commercial Arbitration Arbitration Agreement Seat of Arbitration Applicable Law

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Videocon Industries Ltd.

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent No.1

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (through its arm)

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Delhi High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for an arbitration seated outside India
  2. 2 Whether the seat of arbitration was changed from Kuala Lumpur to London
  3. 3 Whether provisions of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to international commercial arbitration held outside India

Ratio Decidendi

Where the arbitration agreement stipulates that the seat of arbitration is Kuala Lumpur and is governed by English law, and there is no written instrument amending this, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded by agreement. Therefore, Indian courts do not have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings under Section 9. Mere change in venue does not alter the juridical seat.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; petition under Section 9 dismissed.

Orders

  • Delhi High Court's order is set aside.
  • Respondents' petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.