The “seat approach” for determining the law of arbitration and the presumption of judicial consensus in its support has been challenged by the UK Supreme Court in its decision in Enka v. Chubb. Indian Courts, which steadfastly follow this approach, need to review their position and explore a more nuanced approach.
There is judicial consensus in India that the choice of seat of arbitration determines the forum for supervision of the arbitration proceeding and for challenge to the award made in it. But does the choice of the seat of arbitration also determine the law governing the arbitration agreement if the parties have not specifically chosen that law? This article seeks to explore this issue in light of the decisions of our courts and the decisions of the UK Supreme Court.
Please click here to read the full article by Amar Gupta, published in Legal Era.
Amar is amongst the founding members of JSA’s Disputes Practice. He has in past served as the Practice Chair and a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee.