Arbitration: Arbitration and Contract

1. Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Kola Shipping Ltd. [(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 134] where the Indian Supreme Court has held that even when the existence of the main contract was in question, the intention to contract, and the intention to arbitrate, may also be ascertained from the conduct of the parties, and the correspondence between them.

2. Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Polturi Madhavilata (unreported judgment of September 18, 2009) where the Indian Supreme Court has observed that an arbitration clause contained in an agreement, the very existence and validity is under question, cannot be enforced independently of the agreement itself. This, obviously, seems to be contrary to the severability
provisions contained in the [Indian] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. Shashoua v. Sharma, [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 376, where the Queen's Bench Division draws a distinction between the 'seat' of the arbitration, and the 'venue'. The observation here appears to be that when there is an express designation of the arbitration venue as (e.g. London) and no designation of any alternative place as seat, combined with a supranational body of rules (e.g. ICC) governing the arbitration and no other significant contrary indicia, then the venue would also be the juridical seat and the law of such juridical seat the curial law.

4. Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd. v. McAlpine Business Services
Ltd. [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 608, where an English Court has held that the legal seat of the arbitration may not necessarily be the seat provided for in the agreement (Glasgow, Scotland), and that selection of procedural law (English law) may be determinative of the legal seat of the arbitration.