Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 31 AUGUST 2020

Importance Of Seat, Venue Or Place Of Arbitration- Does It Matter?

The judgement discusses the legal concepts underlying the expression ‘seat', ‘venue' and ‘place' of arbitration and is a welcome contribution to the law of international arbitration in India.

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Supreme Court's recent judgement in Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. (decided on 25 September 2018) highlights the risk in not providing for an express choice of law governing the agreement to arbitrate and/or overlooking to stipulate the 'seat' of arbitration. The judgement discusses the legal concepts underlying the expression 'seat', 'venue' and 'place' of arbitration and is a welcome contribution to the law of international arbitration in India.

Facts of the Case

Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. ("Hardy") entered into a production-sharing contract (PSC) with the Government of India (GOI). The substantive law governing the PSC was Indian law. But the law governing the arbitration clause embedded in the PSC, was silent. The arbitration clause provided 'Kuala Lumpur' as the 'venue' of the arbitration, but did not specify the 'seat' or 'place' of arbitration. It instead contemplated that the arbitration

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The above is a generic analysis and should not be regarded as a substitute for specific advice based on the facts of a client’s objectives and specific commercial agreements reached. Please do reach out to us at [email protected] for any queries.

See more popular content from