Domestic arbitration, not international commercial arbitration
The court held that the arbitration proceedings between RIL and UOI are not “international commercial arbitration” as defined under section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Arbitration Act of 1996.
The court said Indian organisation Ril was the sole requester for the arbitration, and the participation of foreign organisations like BPEL and Niko did not convert the arbitration into something international. This finding was significant as it allowed the application of the “Patent Illegal” test under Section 34(2A) of the Act. This is not available in international commercial arbitration.
“In our considered opinion, considering the aforementioned findings learned in the Arbitration Award that the sole claimant, RIL, is the existence of India, the question of arbitration procedures and the ril is ril and ril That is what it means: International commercial arbitration has settled, and the single judge who learned could not take a different view from it, and it also deals with applications under section 34 of the Act.” The court held it.
