9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued pro forma invoice dated 22/6/2001 wherein one of the clauses provides as under: "Any disputes or claims will be submitted to arbitration in New York." The abovesaid clause is treated by the petitioner as arbitration contract between the parties. 3. The petitioner opened an L/C as demanded by the respondent and agreed to by the petitioner. The shipment of the goods arrived at Nhava Sheva Port at Mumbai. The goods on inspection were found to be not conforming to the sample of goods. The petitioner held the respondent guilty of breach of contract and demanded damages and compensation along with refund of the amount of L/C with interest. Vide legal notice dated 22/11/2001 the petitioner called upon the respondent to join in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in India. He submitted that the contract was to be performed in India; it is here that the breach of contract has taken place. Therefore, a petition under s.11 of the Act is maintainable before the Chief Justice of India or his designate. 5. In National Thermal Power Corpn. Vs. Singer Co. a question arose as to the applicability of Indian law when one of the contracting parties was a foreigner. Though the case is pre-1996, certain observations made therein are apposite. In case of conflict of laws, the Supreme Court of India has opined that for arbitration, the selection of the place of arbitration may have little significance where it is chosen, as is often the case, without regard to any relevant or significant link with the place. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the country in which the arbitration is agreed to be held. There is nothing in the contract or correspondence between the parties to rebut the ordinary presumption and spell out an intention of the parties that they intended proper law of India to govern arbitration in spite of the place of arbitration having been agreed to be at New York. 6. So far as the language employed by Parliament in drafting sub-section (2) of s.2 of the Act is concerned, suffice it to say that the language is clear and unambiguous. Saying that this Part would apply where the place of arbitration is in India tantamounts to saying that it will not apply where the place of arbitration is not in India. For the foregoing reasons it is held that the petition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
