IMAX CORPORATION versus M/S E-CITY ENTERTAINMENT (I) PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 10-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 833 
IMAX CORPORATION 
v. 
MIS E-CITY ENTERTAINMENT (I) PVT. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3885 of 2017) 
MARCH 10, 2017 
[S. A. BOBDE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.34 - Petition under, 
maintainability before Indian courts - Jn the instant case, ICC Rules 
were chosen by parties to govern arbitration proceedings -
C 
International Court of Arbitration decided that London would be 
·juridical seat of arbitration by virtue of Art.14(1) of ICC Rules -
Held: The parties did not choose the place of arbitration -
There 
was however an agreement to have the arbitration conducted 
according to the ICC rules and thus a willingness that the seat of 
arbitration may be outside India - In any case, the parties having D 
agreed to have the seat decided by the ICC and the ICC having 
chosen London after consulting the parties and the parties having 
abided by the decision, it must be held that upon the decision of the 
ICC to hold the arbitration in London, the parties agreed that the 
seat shall be in London for all practical purposes - Therefore, 
E 
applicability of Part-I of the Act should be excluded- Petition u/s.34 
was not maintainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Clause 14 of the Agreement deals with two 
matters: (i) the laws which will govern the agreement; and (ii) a 
F 
provision of settling disputes by arbitration. As regards the first, 
it provides that in case a question arises as to the agreement i.e. 
what the agreement means or what the parties intended, it shall 
be interpreted according to the laws of Singapore and these laws 
will govern the understanding and the acts of the parties. Further, 
in case the parties resort to a court, they shall approach the courts G 
of Singapore which alone shall adjudicate upon the issue. The 
courts of Singapore will thus adjudicate in relation to any non-
arbitrable dispute that might arise under the agreement or possibly 
a dispute regarding the correctness or validity of an arbitration 
H 
833 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A award. It is not necessary to consider whether a challenge to the 
award would lie in Singapore in this case because the award in 
fact was made in London and in any case no party has approached 
the court in Singapore. Secondly, this clause provides that any 
dispute arising out of this agreement or concerning the rights, 
B duties or liabilities of the parties shall be settled by arbitration. 
The arbitration shall be pursuant to the ICC Rules of Arbitration. 
In other words, the parties shall invoke the ICC Rules of 
Arbitration in case a dispute arises between them concerning 
their rights, duties or liabilities. The intention is to have the 
dispute settled by and in accordance with the ICC Rules of 
C Arbitration. In this sense, the ICC Rules of Arbitration must be 
construed as being read into this clause. [Para 181 [841-D-H; 
842-A-C] 
2. The ICC Rules provide for the entire conduct of 
arbitration from its commencement to the passing of an award. 
D They provide that the arbitration shall be conducted by the court 
i.e. the International Court of Arbitration, appointed by the council 
of the ICC. A party wishing to have recourse to arbitration under 
the rules is required to submit a Request for Arbitration to the 
Secretariat of the ICC along with the information prescribed and 
in particular comments as to the place of arbitration. The ICC 
E Rules clearly stipulate that the seat of arbitration shall be fixed 
by the court. In this case, the appellant had proposed the venue 
of arbitration to be Paris in France. Upon notice being issued, 
the respondent was obliged to file an answer including a comment 
concerning the number of arbitrators and their choice as to the 
F 
place of arbitration. The respondent, in their answer stated that 
the venue suggested by the claimant i.e. Paris in France would 
unnecessarily increase the cost of arbitration and therefore 
suggested that Singapore would be the most appropriate and 
convenient venue for the arbitration, vide "Answer to Request for 
Arbitration pursuant to Article 5(1) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration" 
G dated 30.08.2004. The International Court of Arbitration decided 
inter alia that London, United Kingdom will be the juridical seat· 
of the arbitration in view of Article 14(1) of the ICC Rules and, 
therefore, proceeded on the basis of the Part-I of the English 
Arbitration Act, 1996. The parties had agre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.