Driven by excellence, focused on strategies for the longer term.

This is the crux of who we are. It is an articulation of precision in purpose, from the Firm’s beginnings to where we are today. Our collective eye is unerringly trained on tomorrow.

Deep sectoral expertise across services and industries.

Our insistence on strategic advisory exacts an in-depth understanding of and involvement with our clients’ businesses and industries. We engage not just individual businesses, but also contribute to the country’s legal and regulatory frameworks.

Personal commitment supported by experience and grit.

We commit early. We pull together internally for greater support. Every effort is sincere, every individual deeply dedicated to their task, their role, to the Firm.

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Knowledge-sharing is intrinsic to equity and inclusivity.

This is a repository of thought leadership, deep insights and strong viewpoints, legal and other news and events and how they impact the industry and our clients.

Relevance is critical to growth. It necessitates a firm that is dynamic and responsive.

Amplifying intrinsic talent, sharpening skills, expanding knowledge, is vital to leading. It defines every aspect of how our firm functions and transacts. This is how we create new benchmarks and set industry standards.

  • Connect
Mar 30, 2020

SC Judgement on Deciding Seat of Arbitration Proceedings in the Absence of Clear Delineation

The SC in Mankastu Impex Private Limited v. Airvisual Limited[1] held that in the absence of a clearly delineated proper and curial law for the arbitration proceedings, the seat of the arbitration proceedings will have to be determined from the other clauses in the arbitration agreement along with the conduct/intention of the parties. The SC interpreted the provisions of the contract, stating that the disputes “shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong” was indicative of the intention of the parties to nominate Hong Kong as the seat of the arbitration proceedings. The seat would have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and declined to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

[1] Mankastu Impex Private Limited v. Airvisual Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 32 of 2018, Supreme Court of India.

TAGS

SHARE

Subscribe

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.

RELATED READING

Inter Alia

Constitution Bench of SC Upheld ‘Group of Companies’ Doctrine

Jan 23, 2024 | Corporate / Mergers & Acquisitions Dispute Resolution
Inter Alia

New Telecommunications Act, 2023 is Now Notified

Jan 23, 2024 | Technology Media and Telecommunication
Inter Alia

Inclusion of Sovereign Green Bonds in Fully Accessible Route

Jan 23, 2024 | Regulatory & Securities