The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the mere choosing of a juridical seat of arbitration would automatically attract the law applicable to such a location in arbitration proceedings.
“……the mere choosing of the juridical seat of Arbitration attracts the law applicable to such location. In other words it would not be necessary to specify which law would apply to the Arbitration proceedings, since the law of the particular country would apply ipso jure”, the Court said.
The Court also opined, “It is too well settled by now that where the parties choose a juridical seat of Arbitration outside India and provide that the law which governs Arbitration will be a law other than Indian law, part I of the [Arbitration and Conciliation] Act would not have any application and, therefore, the award debtor would not be entitled to challenge the award by raising objections under Section 34 before a Court in India. A Court in India could not have jurisdiction to entertain such objections under Section 34 in such a case.”