Abstract

Whether domestic parties in India can choose foreign arbitration seats (and therefore foreign curial law) is a longstanding ambiguity in the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and subsequent case law. This paper uses both theoretical and comparative approaches to critically examine the stated 'public policy' reasons for restricting the parties' ability to choose foreign seats and finds that the reasons are insufficient to justify such a limitation on freedom of contract. It is advanced instead that employing Indian courts' powers under the New York Convention to set ...