Secondly, the choice of the seat of arbitration would amount to a tacit election of the right of that seat (lex fori). As is known – in the absence of an explicit choice of the law of the rule of law in the arbitration agreement – three alternative answers were given to the question concerning the law applicable to them. However, whether the parties to the procedural law governing arbitration have made no choice or that decision has been made, the mandatory provisions of the right of the seat of that arbitration apply and apply to any other provision of the arbitration agreement, arbitration settlements introduced by reference to the parties or the applicable procedural law chosen by the parties. LEX FORI, practical. The law of the court or the forum. 2. According to the lex fori, remedies, procedures and the enforcement of judgments are governed exclusively by the laws of the place where the act is introduced or by the uniform mode of expression of the civilian population. History, Confl. Laws, 550; 1 Caines` Rep. 402; 3 John. J.C. 190; 5 John. A.
132; Two masses. A. 84; Seven masses. A. 515; 3 Conn. A. 472; 7 MR. R. 214; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 860.
In addition, the parties` intention to exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was discussed. It was decided that the existing legislation was Singapore law and the rules, as agreed between the parties, were ICC rules. The ICC had chosen the seat of arbitration as London. It was important that the parties made an explicit decision on the implementation of the arbitration, that is, the ICC rules. Given that the parties had agreed to the ICC, it could be assumed that they were aware of the determination of the rules, that the place of arbitration would be decided in accordance with ICC rules. The court decided that the parties intended to exclude Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in 1996, can be inferred from the agreement in which they had decided the arbitration rules as ICC rules and thus the willingness to proceed with arbitration outside India. In addition, the Supreme Court also referred to a case that was decided by the Swedish Supreme Court on the basis of a passage in Redfern- Hunter: thirdly, the Court of Cassation in France ruled, as in Soerni (Society for Industrial and Naval and Other Naval Studies and Representations). Air Sea Broker Ltd.  Chamber 1, 8 July) and commentators have equally held that an arbitration agreement is not governed by domestic law, but by the application of a rule that derives from the principle of validity of an agreement based on the common intent of the parties and compliance with the good faith requirement (a doctrine called “material regulation”). That is what the Supreme Court has decided, first; If the parties were to resort to justice, they could only go to the courts in Singapore under the clause. Therefore, any non-arbitrary quarrel that may arise from the agreement or any dispute over the accuracy or validity of the award could only be resolved by the Singapore courts. First, the choice of the law of the main contract would also constitute a choice of procedural law applicable to the arbitration agreement that is part of the main contract, a doctrine called “lex contractus”.
Categorised in: Uncategorized
This post was written by rb_ad