tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429122404476438989.post8900349710991638700..comments2024-03-05T01:13:08.033+05:30Comments on Lex Arbitri - the Indian Arbitration Blog: Dozco India P. Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. - Guest Post by Mr. Anirudh KrishnanDeepak Rajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10227775347125508118noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429122404476438989.post-48951526883458708162011-05-30T22:56:32.303+05:302011-05-30T22:56:32.303+05:30Until there is a clear verdict by a larger bench o...Until there is a clear verdict by a larger bench overruling Bhatia explicitly, the woes are going to continue. The recent Videocon verdict might provide a temporary sigh of relief. But still there is a long way to go!Naveen Kumar.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02470860850020631612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429122404476438989.post-90346283873016878482010-10-24T11:21:51.884+05:302010-10-24T11:21:51.884+05:30Such a (relatively) lengthy judgement was not need...Such a (relatively) lengthy judgement was not needed at all but for the mess created by Bhatia International. In international arbitration, once a seat is chosen, the choice of governing law of law is automatic.<br />Redfern, Hunter et al (p. 87): "It is also sometimes said that parties have selected the procedural law that will govern their arbitration, by providing for arbitration in a particular country. This is too elliptical. What the parties have done is to choose a place of arbitration in a particular country. That choice brings with it the submission to the law of that country, including any mandatory provisions of its law on arbitration... The applicability of [the law of the seat] then flows automatically. It is not a matter of choice". (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9mBqDaSB-ZwC&lpg=PP1&dq=redfern%20and%20hunter&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q=french&f=false)<br /><br /> The problem with the post- Bhatia decisions is that Judges of different courts post-bhatia have taken the choice of seat simpliciter as an exclusion of Indian law. But some have asked for more than such simple choice of seat. Perhaps the judges must recognise that in dispute resolution in international commerce, it is better to have less legal technicalities. Hope the Legislature brings in the amendments to the Act ASAP. <br /><br />On the distinction between seat and place of arbitration for convenience, there is no controversy as far as the clause in the present case was concerned. The judge was right in rejecting the contention that the clause did not contain selection of the seat.Badrinath Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.com