Experts & Views
Featured
An estimated 0-minute read
Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Referring to Non-Existent Arbitration Rules: Pricol v. Johnson
In a relatively recent decision in Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. [Arbitration Case (Civil No. 30 of 2014) dated 16 December 2014], the Supreme Court of India addressed a pathological arbitration clause and referred the parties to arbitration by virtually re-drafting the clause. Although the parties agreed in their arbitration clause for arbitration under the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Chamber of Commerce was not an arbitral institution having Rules for appointment of arbitrators. The Supreme Court held that the most reasonable construction of the said clause was that the reference was actually to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. This decision reflects a pro-arbitration approach that has been the feature of arbitration in India since 2012.
A short paper of this blawgger evaluates this decision.
A short paper of this blawgger evaluates this decision.
Original author: Badrinath Srinivasan
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
However, I do hope that the main thing that makes LI worth reading isn't the template but our content (though a nice look is certainly icing on the cake).
Also don't mind for you to read articles in the RSS feed - that's what it's there for. Also, if you have an Android phone it may be worth checking out our app in the Play Store, which is easier to read but a bit more plain, looks wise and lacking in some functionality such as comments...
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first