- Indian Supreme Court affirms commitment to Commercial Court’s decision on London seat of arbitration (Roger Shashoua v Mukesh Sharma)
- Original news
- Practical implications
- What was the background to the Supreme Court’s decision?
- Till death do signatories part from their seat of arbitration: the 2009 ruling
- Courting chaos—multiple challenges to arbitral award
- ‘It’s not you, it’s me’—Delhi High Court asserts jurisdiction in lieu of Commercial Court
- Indian Supreme Court overturns Delhi High Court’s verdict: its reasoning
- Designation as to seat of arbitration tantamount to exclusive jurisdiction clause
- SC upholds appellants’ argument that 2009 ruling already affirmed in Balco and Enercon
- Held—principles of 2009 ruling formed ratio of Balco and Enercon
- SC rejects respondents’ contention that 2009 ruling had not attained finality
- No harm, no foul—appellants did not waive right to contest jurisdiction by approaching domestic court
- Arbitration agreement has no independent relationship with Indian courts
- What other practical lessons can be drawn from the SC’s decision?
Arbitration analysis: Moazzam Khan, co-head of international dispute resolution practice and Tanisha Khanna, a member of the same team at Nishith Desai Associates, examine the Indian Supreme Court’s decision in Roger Shashoua & Others v Mukesh Sharma & Others affirming the court’s fidelity towards principles laid down by foreign courts in determining the seat of arbitration and endorsing a 2009 decision of the Commercial Court in London in relation to the arbitration.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial