How To Sign Iowa Arbitration Agreement

Document type sign arbitration agreement arkansas online

this is a presentation on drafting of arbitration agreements what basic considerations you should have when you embark on drafting of an arbitration agreements arbitration emerging as one of the most popular and easiest of the dispute resolution mechanisms ADR alternative dispute resolution mechanisms so moving on going back to basics for a bit section 7 provides what an arbitration agreement is so if you look at the constituents it should be in writing it should be signed by parties so it can be an exchange of letters telegrams any telecom so courts have also held that an exchange of emails is a valid arbitration agreement and so if there is an exchange of claim and defense with a reference to arbitration agreement and that reference is not disputed that is a valid arbitration agreement so moving on slide number three so in we when we think about drafting an arbitration agreement first of all we have to consider what is the type of arbitration that we are looking for are we looking for an ad hoc arbitration or an institutional arbitration so going to slide 4 then basics what is an ad hoc arbitration arbitration that is not administered by an institution where you get flexibility parties can appoint their arbitrator parties can decide on the rules procedure and costs are lower so who will see what institutional arbitrations are here mix like flight number 5 here is specialized institution administers the process and if there is a contract between the parties with just a reference to that specialized institution and that's all you need because next the institution will take over they will have some fixed set of rules which you can follow and they will actually will charge for this of at the same time they will take over the responsibility of providing you with a panel of arbitrators and appointments and you don't have to worry much so moving on what may be the disadvantages of an institutional arbitration for us we'll discuss disadvantages before we go on to advantages so we have to remember that disadvantages of institutional arbitration are also advantages of ad-hoc arbitration here actually the main drawback is the fees because your fees would depend on your claim amount and it's very high secondly the rules are fixed there's hardly any flexibility and thirdly because these institutions keep competing against one another and target efficacy and completion within a fixed time they have really unrealistic timeframes for instance if you have 30 days to file a statement of claim and you need an extension that extension would also be provided in the rule book and if you want something to work beyond that then probably you will have to pay high costs so we must remember these are also advantages of having ad hoc arbitrations where you know fees aren't reasonable because the Indian Arbitration Act provides for what fees may be paid to what for what same amounts it's far far more reasonable than institutional arbitrations there is flexibility in the procedures because in people may sit over a table in front of the arbitrator and they can just across from each other they can decide on some procedure they want to adopt and timeframes are obviously better now obviously with 2015 amendment we have a one-year time period and then section 29 it's six months except by extension by consent of parties and then our 29a extension now going to the court but apart from that it is a little better when the institutional arbitrations fixed rules provide moving on to the next slide slide number seven what are the advantages of institutional arbitration now unfortunately in India we do not have the system of costs enforced very strictly if you look at English cases then costs are always borne by the losing parties so institutional arbitration also makes that a norm they provide a lot of administrative assistance basically they make it very easy they provide a panel of arbitrators who are qualified in different commercial sectors and you do not have to know anything about them because they profiles are available they will the institutional vouch for them and they will appoint the arbitrators on parties consent it will provide all the required facilities and though you do not have much of a latitude but sometimes established rules and procedure to bring consistency and ease in the proceeding so these are the advantages of institutional arbitration also to remember these are the things you do not get in ad-hoc arbitrator ad hoc arbitrations moving on to slide number eight here are some international institutions which generally are used by Indians in disputes now here ICC International Chamber of Commerce and Singapore international arbitration center are the most popular LCI a is not so popular in India so much so that business but since 2016 they are back again and Hong Kong international arbitration center is of course upcoming and doing better moving on to slide command I mean these are some Indian institutions like the Indian Council of arbitration by Centre for international arbitration some high courts like the Delhi High Court and the Bangalore high could have also set up their own arbitration and conciliation center which are affiliated to the courts and judges refer to these institutions if the parties agree now coming to slide number in so once we understand the two types of arbitration whether we are opting for ad hoc or institutional arbitration it is important that the five basic ingredients are kept in mind while drafting an arbitration agreement one is the seat and venue 2 is the applicable law and procedure and by-and-by we'll see how seat and applicable law and procedure are intrinsically related so it's very important that the seat and see just chosen with caution third is the enforce the ability of the award so you better have an arbitration where you are able to enforce the award when the property of the person is because you will you want to go to a court you want to enforce the award and you want to move against the properties of the person or recover your award the fourth is the scope of dispute that is arbitrable and of course arbitrability is another issue that is here now we know Booz Allen and forward and ranging from Booz Allen we have several judgments which have laid down one disputes an arbitral mill and what are not in this presentation I haven't concentrated on them but of course that should be arbitrable that is one essential essential issue and arbitrators like what arbitrators who are the arbitrators you can appoint what do you see in the arbitrator's who you nominate or a point within one party in a point so we are going to look into those issues slide number 11 there are some other factors that one must keep in mind why drafting an arbitration agreement number one is there should be a clear intention to arbitrate and permissive language should be avoided so it should not sound like the party's main arbitrate it should be that all disputes shall be resolved by arbitration because there are enough and more precedents which hold that if the court finds that the language was just permissive and not compulsory so in that case one party does not want to arbitrate cannot be forced to the second regard is to the nature and value of potential claim because if you do not have a very high claim there is no point appointing a three-member arbitral tribunal because algae material costs will be greater than your recovery and one must have regard to the complexity of potential claims what type of claim it is whether you need an expert arbitrator like often we see in EPC contracts engineering contracts we have one engineer arbitrator on the panel who is able to understand the intricate issues connected and specific with the engineering contract and we should also consider the urgency with which a decision is required because often it happens that the contract is continuing there is a dispute and you vote for an arbitration you get an award and you settle the dispute between the parties so in those cases in occur in a situation where the contract is actually continuing you would require a decision quick and fast so that also should be considered while drafting the arbitration agreement the agreement should be not too brief neither too detailed that's because if it's too brief then you miss out on the important aspects if it is very detailed there are let's say in fine if pages arbitration agreements they are often some points that on conflict with others so the courts find it difficult to manage and interpret and lastly if you are providing for a pre arbitration mechanism because in many contracts we see that there is compulsory mediation and conciliation before you actually move on to arbitration now in those cases could have held that these are compulsory and you must exhaust that remedy until and unless the mind of the other side seems to be made up that conciliation is not going to help your case anyway so given that we have to follow the taxation and mediation mechanisms there should be a time limit given to the same so that we don't waste much time before going on to arbitration otherwise this would go on for years so after the fact let us get on will be issued so first I said Seaton venue so why is choosing a seat important this is the important thing in an arbitration agreement and of course we look into the question of what is the difference between a sage and a venue at the cost of replication because we already know that now this is to understand something I find very intriguing in the Arbitration Act is the fact that there are so many judgments about seat in arbitration proceedings but the word seat itself does not find a place in the arbitration act the word is place of arbitration in Section 20 so parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration and failing the agreement of course it will be decided by the arbitral tribunal with taking into consideration everything moving on to slide 15 we are just looking into the law for the time just the law as it stands today in a bit looking looking into the history for a bit because it is very event so section if you get section 2 1 ye of the Act it provides that the court will be defined as what has jurisdiction on the subject matter of the arbitration as if it was a subject matter of the suit so basically what is do how is jurisdiction determined for a suit either it is a place where the respondent or the defendant resides or where cause of action arises or where the property is located so here if we apply the same thing to arbitration proceedings then these factors should actually determine the soup pipe supervisory jurisdiction of the court for the arbitration proceeding but ballyhoo for the first time held that to one he says actually it means two ports should have jurisdiction quote that originally has jurisdiction according to CPC that where the cause of action is located and the port within whose jurisdiction the arbitration takes place so here basically what ballyhoo said giving it it read basically two types of definitions of curled into one I'd request if you could keep yourself on mute fees Sebastopol Co in this movie I'll said that this was applicable to domestic arbitrations as well and it even went on to hold that seat the coded seat will have exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of regulating arbitral proceedings so basically the we can hear you I was just trying to see if I can mute all what I think at that point of time I had muted you okay then I'm muting all then am i audible everyone's muted yes you oh so it Investment mobile the court went on to decide that the court at seat will have an exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of regulating arbitration proceedings which which means that the cause of action portnow who went out of the picture and the coup the siege of the arbitration became very very important now moving on just a minute yeah so moving on to thousand 19 and 20 we had many many judgments on this issue first brahminy River Park pellets it held that venue to is seat so if there is a venue designated it is same as seat so here the court which had supervisory jurisdiction over the venue will have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceeding then we have BG s SGS soma which said that if a contract says a place is a venue of the arbitration proceeding and there is nothing in the contract to suggest that venue is just a place where the hearings are held then automatically it will be assumed that it is the seat and then the courts there will have supervisory jurisdiction and but it also held something that in fact if seat and when you both are not specified only then would we go back to the cause of action based jurisdiction onset in Alinta finance which is a Bombay High Court case here also the venue was New Delhi so you're the court said that since there is nothing to suggest that it is a mere venue venue or a meeting place for convenience it should be taken as the seat and the courts at New Delhi will have supervisory jurisdiction over the preceding now now that we have seen how the law at seat has evolved and how the whole that seat has supervisory control over the entire arbitration proceeding let us look at a bit at look at applicable law now three types of law that is very very important and we should consider it while drafting the arbitration agreement one is substantive law legs are we try that is the law that is applicable to the arbitration proceeding and let's loci are we try that is the law at the seat of the arbitration proceeding now moving on to such slide 9 what is substantive law substantive law is something that it govern the merits of the case so here how the dispute will be decided depends on the substantive law watch law will apply now just for example I have quoted there the rules of the London court of international arbitration the SEC's the portion related to substantive law arbitral tribunal shall decide the parties dispute in accordance with the laws or rules rules of law chosen by the parties are applicable to the merits of the dispute this is substantive law so if the parties do not make a choice arbitral tribunal shall apply the laws as it considers appropriate next slide slide number 18 this is Indian Arbitration Act section 28 what is applicable to substance of dispute so for when the place of arbitration is in India other than in international commercial arbitration then the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute submitted to arbitration in accordance with the substantive law for the time being in force in India that is Indian law to be there it would be applicable and in international commercial arbitration the courts will decide the dispute and according to the rules of London signature parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute moving on what is the relation between the law receipt that is the Lex loci I will try and next I'll be trying now as we have seen let's arbitrate is the law that governs the arbitration proceeding and Lex loci are betray is the law at the seat now both are laws that are procedural in nature and they regulate the e-journal process of the arbitration and the relationship between the arbitrator the arbitral tribunal and the court now they are conceptually different because one is the law at the seat and one is the law that governs the proceeding but mostly these laws are chosen to be same because they shouldn't be a conflict between the two or if Lex are big try is different from Lex yokai are we try then it is modified to the extent allowed by the Lex loci of it trying you cannot have a different procedural law which was outside the purview of the law at the seat so the question that naturally come this to what extent can you opt out of the law the seat of the arbitration so here is an interesting case by a Singapore now the Singapore Arbitration Act section 49 provides for an appeal from an award and if you see subsection 2 the Act also allows parties to exclude the jurisdiction of the court and if such an agreement is their parties then that would exclude the jurisdiction of the court and that would rule out an appeal now in this matter the parties had opted for ICC rules of arbitration as it stood in 1998 now ICC rules allows that you parties want an award will be final and binding and appeal provision will not be there so when it was challenged the court held that since the local law at Singapore that is the Singapore Arbitration Act allowed for such deviation so the parties could well agree that we would not do an appeal we would rule out the provision of a appeal according to the ICC rules of arbitration but had that this seat being India instead of Singapore this would not have possible because Indian law does not allow that so now that we have seen four cases in where the seat is in India what about foreign seated arbitrations where the seat is not in India can you still approach Indian courts what if there are properties in India that you want to proceed against so section two has been amended now section nine 27 and 37 also applied to international commercial arbitration where the seat is outside India nine pertains to injury protection 27 pertains to taking the court's help in evidence and 37 is the appeal provision so until and unless you particularly contract out of these provisions this would be applicable to your arbitration even if it even if the seat is not in India now this is of course a welcome change because international jurisdictions such as Singapore in London already had this thing in their arbitration act and this flexibility was already available so for them if the arbitration was located outside the country when both Singapore votes and votes could be approached for injury relief so India better late than never has adopted this as well so these are the factors that should be remembered when we are choosing the seat for domestic arbitrations the seat should be chosen I'm just interrupting you here in relation to that earlier slide where you were yeah in relation to the earlier slide where you were mentioning that this section 9 of 27 and 37 applicable it is obviously subject to an agreement to the contrary yeah have you come across any cases where this egg demented or contrary has been implied from the contract let's say that by people choosing or the part is choosing foreign seated venue and forints curial law it says that that could also amount to an agreement to the contrary though the choice of seat in domestic arbitrations what are the factors this is the summary of what factors should be considered firstly the expressed choice of words should be seat or juridical seat and not venue a place of arbitration because let's not have controversy in the agreement secondly despite having a specific designation of seating an arbitration clause we can shift around the hearings just for fun we can have separate venues of the arbitration proceeding that would not have an effect on the Supervisory would because seat is already fixed in the arbitration clause what is what are the consequences of selection as we have seen supports having jurisdiction over the seat will get exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and decide the matters and the challenge as well and arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the law of the chosen seat I'm going to slight 25 what do we look at when in international commercial arbitration foreign ceded what do we look at when we choose the seat first if we do not want Indian courts to have jurisdiction over the matters or we do not want a party to approach Indian courts in the arbitration proceedings we specifically contract out of section 9 27 and 37 secondly the law governing the arbitration proceedings should be kept same as the law at the seat or should you know not travel beyond the law at the seat and the substantive law applicable to the contract the legs are we try and the Lord the seat should all be clearly mentioned for instance we should say that the substantive law should be English law and quotes of ports at London will have exclusive jurisdiction and the seat should be London so it should all be specified now moving on to the scope of the dispute now we have already discussed arbitrability for a bit which is not really covered in this presentation but otherwise the scope generally oaths have interpreted an arbitration clause should be interpreted very widely so expressions such as arising out of or in respect of in connection with in relation to provided that the dispute is arbitrable should be used in the arbitration clause so that one cannot come and argue that this particular part is not covered within the arbitration clause but having said that we must remember the general view of course is that if only a small portion of the relief is not within the scope of the clause and the main subject of the action is within the arbitration clause then we should hold that the arbitration clause this should be upheld now when we are talking about the scope of the arbitration clause these are the points that should be kept in mind the clause should be definite section we should keep in mind that section 11 code is decide on the existence of the arbitration clause and arbitral tribunal can decide on the scope of the arbitration clause the arbitral tribunal can decide on its own jurisdiction the principle of competence competence so it can also decide on the scope on the scope of the clause itself and the exclusions if any should be well drafted sometime this exclusion can be taken advantage of and sometimes it may come to your disadvantage as well for instance we were had being a matter in a partnership dispute where dissolution was outside the scope of arbitration so the clause mentioned that the arbitrator cannot order resolutions so the other side brought an issue whether the arbitrator declaring that dissolution is valid is equivalent to the arbitrator ordering for a dissolution and they carved out an exception and they argued that once dissolution had been effected the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hold that dissolution so you need to be very very specific and careful about drafting exclusions in an arbitration agreement now moving on to slide number 28 what do we look at when we appoint arbitration arbitrators now of course schedule H has been inserted by the arbitration and conciliation Amendment Act 2019 this has not been notified yet but this really contains very very strict requirements for instance I think even a Supreme Court ex justice of God cannot be an arbitrator but there has been massive protests against this provision but it hasn't been notified yet what has been notified after coming into force in 2015 is the fifth schedule and the seventh shadow of the Act with 12 so these provide factors which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to impart unity of an arbitrator as well as which make the arbitrator ineligible to arbitrate and dispute now for every arbitrator it is essential that once he is appointed after 2015 he should furnish a disclosure in a format provided in the sixth reading so it's very important that when an arbitrator is being appointed it should be in once should check before the appointment that he does not come under any of the exclusions any of the disqualifications now looking into some proceedings as to how we decide on the arbitrator's now this is a Delhi High Court judgment so here what had happened is the arbitrator had appeared as an arbitrator for the same party for 27 arbitration matters and he had not disclosed the same so though this is actually not a ground of ineligibility it is just it just give rights to dis justifiable doubts but since he had not disclosed it the court took an exception and it says that the arbitrator was ineligible to be appointed now here is a slightly old case for explain where the Supreme Court had held that there should be a broad-based panel for government contracts so if you are drafting an arbitration agreement for a government company it should be kept in mind that government's obviously BSU's and all they have named arbitrators I have recently come across contracts and even after amendments the managing director or the chairman has been nominated as the arbitrator definitely that cannot be done any more after the 2015 amendment so here the court held that it is it is not okay to need in an arbitrator but it is okay to provide a broad-based panel so here the court directed formation of a panel comprising of 30 arbitrators and then the parties can choose from that panel now this is an interesting discussion because in TR it's the seven shadowy when it was being interpreted now we all know that the seven shadow provides that existing employees of a company cannot be appointed as an arbitrator so humor in trf the managing director was unnamed arbitrator so the court held that since the managing director was disqualified himself he could not even nominate an because you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do anything now very recently in December Perkins Eastman architects another judgment of the Supreme Court it's sort of extrapolated trf2 interpret let's t derive had disqualified the managing director as an arbitrator because the managing director is directly interested in the outcome of the dispute so by that logic it held that if the managing director is not qualified to nominate an arbitrator then a party to the arbitrator arbitration cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator it should be appointed arbitrator should be appointed by consent of both parties so many high codes have now Teddy High Court and Bombay have followed Perkins so moving on next slide there is another case central organization for railway electrification where it was held there was a panel of three retired railway officers so it was a convoluted process of appointment where one party would choose two names and the other party would choose one name for it so here quite strangely the court held that since the managing directors or to nominate the arbitrator is offset by the respondents exercising choice in choosing one of the arbitrator's from the panel so the clause is good it it is a valid arbitration Johnson again who aces from simplex infrastructure and SMS limited for Delhi High Court cases here also they also discussed on the panel of arbitrator what basically transpires from these cases is that the number of arbitrators on the panel is irrelevant a panel being broad based means that they should be from different professions they should have different expertise you could appoint X judges advocates lawyers and not only X employees or people who are connected to that industry per se so what are the points to remember when we are appointing arbitrators now in ad hoc arbitrations it is very necessary that table which teachers are appointed by mutual consent for government contracts you can provide panels but the panel should be broad-based and definitely respondents should have a say in final selection of the arbitrator from the panel that is essential one other thing that should be kept in mind is that the type of dispute and the subject matter of the dispute is very very important now if it is a convoluted engineering arbitration you cannot have a senior annex judge of the Supreme Court only I you know without offence to anybody's knowledge but then it would be good for the judge alone to drive the arbitration so it is advisable that an engineer is also present on the panel so if the parties disagreed obviously you fall back on section 11 6 and 11 6a of the arbitration and conciliation Act where the court appoints for you and trusts me you I have never seen a case where the courts whether the name of the arbitrator is not the contract the parties have mutually agreed upon one arbitrator it rarely happens it's generally one party suggests an in the other and until and unless it's a three-member tribunal a sole arbitrator definitely and definitely cannot be agreed upon mostly by parties and generally people tend to go to boards under Section 11 and ask for an appointment of arbitrator if arbitrator is appointed from pre-approve paneling the human contracts go for Broadway's panel and number should preferably be odd this has been held as a terrible provision but two sole arbitrators are best to be appointed for these fields for no value disputes and well you have to avoid any more arbitrators you go for a three member panel just like it is provided in the Arbitration Act thank you hello hello yes ma'am this is Nikhil singing from Delhi office Mahon associate over here I have two questions man firstly regarding as you said that the parties really agree on the name of arbitrator for especially for sole arbitrator and what I could understand after work in judgment there's even the nomination by one single party is not allowed so in a sense what judiciary has done has they actually destroyed the concept of unilateral for appointment of a sole arbitrator by the party and the only option which remains right now is that to approach the court for even for appointment of sole arbitrator so what are your views regarding whether is it reasonable to have in the contracts cannot do anything unless I don't see much yes even if I have seen so I immediately if you ask me it is not a very bad option try to avoid interference at all levels but then with the present scope narrow down it is a it is not a very bad thing and be see now if the 2019 amendment comes into force then the court will then obviously the court will not appoint the counsel will appoint now I think things are things will get a little easier after that so in a sense party should keep this in mind that they won't be able to appoint an arbitrator on their own unless there are consensus appears the party should be aware that the appointment will be done by counsel or the till the time 2019 comes into effect by the cop definitely that is a practical consideration we should always be aware of because definitely I would say that if you until analysts see what you can do a suggestion is that when you are providing the name of the solar arbitrator provide the name of a person which is unimpeachable from all respects based so you should provide a name no no provided a name as in when you are invoking the arbitration you have to provide an arbitrator's name right in the contract at the time of making that you cannot unilaterally provide a name sure when you are invoking the arbitration you can name a sole arbitrator in case the name the person who you choose as an arbitrator his reputation is unimpeachable he is let's say has a clean record record is an exchange you know and then you hope for the best that the other side will agree to it or the court will agree to his name in donation this is a second question is just I want to know your view section 31 for it is form and content of arbitral award say that award shall state it state and place in accordance with section 20 and so they are two prerequisite it should name the place and the date on which is sign and there is emission judgment of Supreme Court or by a three-judge bench when Monica sue versus air visual limited mom where it has said the court has categorically said that the place of arbitration if so facto would mean that that place is the seat of the arbitration which I personally disagree because BALCO has said that place and seat can be used interchangeably right and which was also held in industrial Indus mobile search so me can we do it just to give certainty to certainty to a place as at seed just a single line that the place of arbitration and finding of award shall be in Delhi so we can give an indicator that we meant by us saying one single line we can give greater certainty to a place as an arbitration because parties usually don't give so tell me something what has see on honestly I have really not thought about this issue like you place it it's a very interesting perspective but then tell me something what has case of signing the award has to do with the seat of the section 31 force is that the place place must be ready in accordance with section 20 I see and then section 20 says that party can agree on a place of arbitration no no but that which has been remembered the recent judgment of three-judge bench which I personally also disagree ma'am seeing a larger bench has given its view but I don't know why it was not considered in that judgment but it says that one casue versus air visual limited man decided on March 5 2020 where it has said the place of arbitration it say it's effective won't be a seat unless there are other indica ors so to respect both man casue and the Valco judgement can we not just add one thing that the place of arbitration and the signing of award will happen in Delhi it will give certain eighty and to that place as a seat ma'am you only from the drafting perspective great yes sure okay man thank you bye pooja I'm physically writing a third paper on why Perkins is wrong law oh my god yes people are writing in fact I've almost finished it today I had thought of sharing with the tomorrow the white perkins is long I have traced it from the earlier law the current law the main Mende 246 law Commission report and the ice cream code judgments and I feel that Perkins is definitely not the right law right so it requires a reconsideration by the court in the light of these statutory provisions so I still personally believe that you cannot take away the right of a party to a point the sole arbitrator in the context of the legal provisions as they stand the statute book then you have sections 11 to 11 for 11 5 and sections 12 1 3 4 5 and you cannot so therefore I would still sort of say that one party to an agreement can keep the right to appoint the sole arbitrator because that is allowed under Section 11 to see not only 11 aspect but I think that why TRF reads like it does is because TRS proceeded on the logic that you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly so since managing director cannot act as an arbitrator he cannot appoint an arbitrator so in my view very personally if you ask me even TRF is wrong you're absolutely right in fact IRF also in that has been extrapolated and people have misconstrued it diamond is one right is to nominate others to act as an arbitrator the difference is absolutely and also if you see TRF okay tilt er if it will be it's still you can justify it but then ter F has been unfairly extrapolated because means proceeded on the logic yeah that grf holds that Managing Director is interested in the comment that he cannot appoint which is the logic in 100% fact the Perkins goes into a complete misunderstanding of TRS we extrapolate questions otherwise okay I am ready to take up questions offline also in this shooter mail and Nick Hill I would definitely look into this issue I look into this issue and get back to the question you raised it's very interesting thank you so I I don't think that they probably are any other questions Thank You Pooja and as I we had noted that this is actually part 1 / 2 part 2 part series first one was obviously what pooja hatt and the nation the second part of the series is going to be taken up by and in the arbitration there that yes where you cannot buy you cannot convert restriction to a certain case you cannot do that under the Arbitration Act either is still good law but in distress the data wind is also there not only from the perspective of drafting but in the future what is your view on this like how is this to be reconciled can we should we give the jurisdiction on the place which has no nexus with the cause of action or where jurisdiction cannot be C or C strictly if you ask me no matter how much I disagree with it but Supreme Court judgment is the law of the land so right there are enough and more like like after BALCO I think this is your idea comes in is a Supreme Court judgment but then after BALCO this has totally gone to eat and not cause of action so if you are talking about domestic arbitrations we just stated in India I don't think it makes much of a difference because anywhere whether you whether Delhi is your seat or Bombay is your seat you you basically make the seat where the property is it will be easier to execute so for our Gotham base defendant you wouldn't really have a seat in Delhi you would have it in Calcutta so that when you want you can move for a section 9 and then you can in junk from his property right it is a practical consideration so you see the Supreme Court decision which says that you do not have to file the execution at the place of seat of arbitration and then to the property situated you can directly execute the award so the properties in Calcutta the seat is New Delhi now waters New Delhi you don't have to find the execution in New Delhi I can go to Calcutta straight file they award as is and go for execution yeah yeah that's a latest Supreme Court decision I think it was in 2018 Abdul Samad the judgment about this particular thing was done and from the toe was referring to the Calcutta I could case what Calcutta I could kiss and actually done is that it it reinterpreted Indus to say that when Marco what when they said that the parties can confer the jurisdiction it was actually limited to international arbitration and so far as domestic arbitration is concerned you have to you for the parties cannot confession by choosing a seat or venue which has no Nexus to the particular proceeding unfortunately as pooja has rightly mentioned in Durst and subsequently the years so ma Lita did the same position so the position as it is is that parties can even without any cause of action they can confer jurisdiction on a coat of their choice also to add sir in BALCO also when defining the meaning of the court the court said that the definition of code given under Arbitration Act has subject matter the subject matter is not in essence it's not directly with Athens with CPC the subject matter arbitration is different that the subject matter of suit so the subject matter cannot in the section 2 1 e cannot be read exactly as the section through one of the subject matter as in CPC so I think so Indian courts have tendency to move towards giving jurisdiction towards the place of the seat through the courts of the seat which has been reiterated in media so masseur if I am NOT wrong sir yeah probably so any other query so I think we should stop the session here thank you so much puja for this enlightening session and we look forward to VR we have plans for conducting more and more training sessions in the coming week and we look forward to having those sessions to answer yes ma'am sorry I think it's mentioned in the act that it's subject matter of arbitration if the same had been subject matter of the suit so you check that up once yes ma'am because in the concurrent jurisdiction this interpretation was done by the court to give the jurisdiction because the seat as you said the seat is not mentioned under the Act to give the concurrent jurisdiction the code dates some took some Liberty and did this interpretation and since it's a five-judge bench man it's not been challenged at Ft effort just to give the concurrent jurisdiction ma'am and the inclination of towards two of the ports towards seat which has been rehydrated invidious Omaha that's why they say they exploded jurisdiction all courts go out when you see in the code took some Liberty man went that way I would say okay Thank You Nikki thank you thank you guys