LLOYD'S LAW REPORTS [1993] Vol 2 4B Pas ‘Union of India | Dougias: {0.B. (Com. Ct.) f bargain and the arbitration the eS | samme {@) the fac that Indian law was the proper law of Dee. 2.109 | See __ | ‘themselves was also Indian law unless there was: ‘UNION OF INDIA tam aren (ep. S0.col Dr y. leat from the authorities that English McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION | ig 7ail ums tri-tsr the neoreacal possbunertiet the pargies were free to choose to hold their arbi- ‘Before Mr. Justice SaviLLe gaia cs cour Dt ej to he pred! ‘Arbitration — Proper law ~~ Dispate between plain | Engish Court under the Arbitration Acts — Arbitration clause zrttraton 2 England could not be exciaded by an Eagle iin ee s er: the choice of a procedural law difiereat from By 2, stinen agreement dat July 30, 1967 the eee ree eT cate sontrecrad defendants ‘where that place was pecessarily mean tp andere series for the fonmer in and -tiarthe parbes bad aceenis chosee to have mae about the launch of a space satellite. Lipro- |“ arbierable at least potentially governed vided that the agreement was to be governed by, | boch by their express choice and by the laws of interpreted and construed i the | Enpiand: such a state of affairs, was clearly highi laws of India. The arbizration clause (art. 8) pro- | Gnegrisfarsory and the question was whether th. pares had agreed wo sucha potemally maaes.~ we the word “conduned” in, the arbitration -. i ~ ‘was more apt to describe the way in tee ee enae c | Reaeabareenagoeee enactment or modification thereof. The arbi- col. IE, OF creat, 7 ings br the Indian Courcs (see p. 51. col. 1 language ... The scat of the arbitration pro- | (6) by their agreement the parties had chosen ‘coediings shail be London. United Kingdom . . English tow as the law 10 govern their arbitration (A dispute arose berween the partes and was | Ett=n‘asttuore provisour of at Act Shich tere selerred to arbitration. The hearing was fixed to |” concerned with the internal conduct of their arb ‘begin in London on Jan. 11. 1993 and the issue for | eem"on "Un th* IETAR, Cont oS ame decision was whether the law governing the arbi- xs pot > ether the te fovsmaing the shots of Esesh erbural procedural lw: on ths “The plaintifis comended that the words “the | Poveca the partis andanyawartmogs bythe abr - tal tribunal 10 the supervisory ‘Gon of the English Courts (seep. 51..col. ‘The following cases were referred to in the Judgment: ¥. Helliniki Techniki S.A... [1984] 10.B. 291: Pes Wattbotacchatienbary / AG. iret] 2Liowd's Rep. 436 — ¥ Partners v. Whitworth Street | Estates (Manchester) Ltd. (HL-) [1970] 1 « Lloyd's Rep. 269; [1970] A.C. 5&3: i i[Saviize. J. Union of India v. McDonnell Dougizs LLOYD’S LAW REPORTS 11993) Vol.2 OB. (Com. Ct)] a la jue | te ya Hie ey Pecee eT Het ale BEE pete sag EREEE Do Seah Sasaagy aie 1a] iia le jan tl Hil i wth iT satin nt i all Fi] ii analy) iene Pew ae ine Hd iat i b | tinea paeaih ae paREy Parc pe ileutint de Un Un EES EG ee rai wage utilis ney ue Hie aieetil Hey i[2993] Vol.2 byte pay al iaeadh bine put sy ' Hii Hie te ne ui EN tl HEL GH ile al ra LLOYD’S LAW REPORTS “Unica of India v. McDoomeli Douglas | me a raion, The ‘term of Eon pos faint fee nee veces mee MY ~ i i eth sn it Hs Eau un a wee apt HE il ae atu it ile a ine! ie a ui tea oll) HET gt HG HlLLOYD'S LAW REPORTS Union of India v. McDonnell Doupias {Savme. J. Tgtsny OTE ie i a5 q 8 cA i jth fit ae ane EH eee ina Te til rH Tt it ee Hed ee i ana HE A nea HT nfo Wie ub aE TRAE: Hie aM tig! inl Hall Hee ial ih iH Hi allt