PRIYA HIRANANDANI VANDERVALA Vs. NIRANJAN HIRANANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the ratio of the decision reported as 2012 (9) SCC 552 Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. is the principal issue between the parties. And depending upon the answer thereto if other issues arise for consideration we shall state the same followed by our opinion thereon.

(2.) The debate hinges on paragraphs 95, 96 and 97 of the decision and therefore we extract the said paragraphs: -

(3.) We analyze the three paragraphs. In paragraph 95 the Supreme Court has dealt with the contention advanced by the appellants : that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not limited to arbitrations which take place in India because the provisions indicate the said Act, to be subject -matter centric and not exclusively seat -centric, therefore seat is not the centre of gravity. Therefore, it would apply to Foreign Arbitrations as well. This is apparent from the first three sentences of the paragraph which note the contentions of the appellants. The three lines read : 'The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that Section 2(1)(e), Section 20 and Section 28 read with Section 45 and Section 48(1)(e) make it clear that Part I is not limited only to arbitrations which take place in India. That these provisions indicate that the Arbitration Act, 1996 is subject -matter centric and not exclusively seat -centric. That therefore, "seat" is not the "centre of gravity" so far as the Arbitration Act, 1996 is concerned.'