LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

UNION OF INDIA versus HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION (INDIA) INC

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 01-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 19 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA
v.
HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION (INDIA) INC
(Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2018)
MAY 01, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Arbitration Law – International Commercial Arbitration –
Award passed in respondent’s favour in an international commercial
arbitration proceeding between the appellant and respondent
(foreign company) – Application filed by appellant  u/s.34,
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent
challenging the legality of the award passed – Respondent raised
objections inter alia that Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to
entertain such application – Objection  upheld by High Court –
Issue as to when the arbitration agreement specifies the “venue”
for holding arbitration sittings by the arbitrators but does not specify
the “seat”, then on what basis and by which principle, the parties
have to decide the place of “seat” for determining the applicability
of laws of a particular country for deciding the post award
arbitration proceedings – Held: Though, the question regarding
the “seat” and “venue” for holding arbitration proceedings by the
arbitrators arising under the Arbitration Agreement/International
Commercial Arbitration Agreement is primarily required to be
decided keeping in view the terms of the arbitration agreement itself,
but having regard to the law laid down by Supreme Court in several
decisions, this is a fit case to exercise power under Or.VI, r.2, Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 and to refer to a larger Bench – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or.VI,
r.2.
Directing the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India for constituting appropriate Bench, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though, the question regarding the “seat” and
“venue” for holding arbitration proceedings by the arbitrators
arising under the Arbitration Agreement/International
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 662
662
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
Commercial Arbitration Agreement is primarily required to be
decided keeping in view the terms of the arbitration agreement
itself, but having regard to the law laid down by this Court in
several decisions by the Benches of variable strength, and further
taking into consideration the submissions urged by the counsels
for the parties and also keeping in view the issues involved in
the appeal, which frequently arise in International Commercial
Arbitration matters, this is a fit case to exercise power under
Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and refer
this case (appeal) to be dealt with by the larger Bench of this
Court for its hearing. [Para 23][670-A-C]
National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Co. and
Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 551 : [1992] 3 SCR  106 ; Sumitomo
Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. and Ors. (1998) 1
SCC 305 : [1997] 6  Suppl.  SCR  186 ; Sundaram
Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 479 :
[1999] 1  SCR  89 ; Bhatia International  v. Bulk Trading
S.A. and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 105 : [2002] 2 SCR  411 ;
Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer
Services Ltd. & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 190 :  [2008] 1 SCR
501 ; Indtel Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins
Rail Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 308 : [2008] 12 SCR 673 ;
Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohan Das & Ors. (2009) 5
SCC 313 : [2009] 5 SCR 118 ; Citation Infowares Ltd.
v. Equinox Corporation (2009) 7 SCC 220 : [2009] 6
SCR 737 ; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ferro Concrete
Construction (P) Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR
31 ; Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India and
Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 161 : [2011] 8 SCR 569 ; Dozco
India Private Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Limited
(2011) 6 SCC 179 : [2010] 12 SCR 259 ; Yograj
Infrastructure Limited v. Ssang Yong Engineering and
Construction Co. Limited (2011) 9 SCC 735 : [2011]
14 SCR 301 ; Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser
Aluminium Technical Services INC (2012) 9 SCC 552 :
[2012] 12 SCR 327 ; Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. v.
Enercon GMBH & Anr. (2014) 5 SCC 1 : [2014] 2 SCR
855 ; Reliance Industries Limited and Anr. v. Union of
UNION OF INDIA v. HARDY EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION (INDIA) INC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
India (2014) 7 SCC 603 : [2014] 6 SCR 456 ; Harmony
Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd. &
Anr. (2015) 9 SCC 172 : [2015] 2 SCR 697 ; Union of
India v. Reliance Industries and Ors. (2015) 10 SCC
213 : [2015] 10 SCR 85 ; Bharat Aluminum Company
v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services INC (2016) 4
S

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