Indigo Exports Industries Limited ('IEIL'), a prominent exporter based in India, entered into a financial agreement with Kokoil & Company, a financial services firm also based in India. The agreement specified variou

The following are few case laws wherein the parties were allowed a foreign seated arbitration with the application of Indian law: In Atlas Exports Industries vs. Kotak & Company & Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India , two Indian parties can choose a foreign-seated arbitration with the application of Indian law [Section 28(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] In a landmark ruling in PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2021 , Supreme Court of India rejected the argument that the designation of a foreign seat between two Indian parties was contrary to public policy, and instead, ruled affirmatively that there was nothing in the (Indian) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') that precluded Indian parties from arbitrating in a foreign seat and that party autonomy and freedom of contract must be upheld. In Addhar Mercantile v. Shree Jagdamba Agrico Exports & TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v. UE Development India Private Ltd , if two Indian parties so choose, the objections to the award would lie in the country of the chosen seat, however, if assets (which in all likelihood would be in India) the award would need to be enforced here. In Bhatia International v/s. Bulk Trading , it was held that Indian courts have the right to use their jurisdiction to test the significance of an arbitral award made in India, even if the actual law of the contract is foreign. The court recognized that Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives effect to UNCITRAL Model Law allowing courts to grant interim relief even when the seat of international commercial arbitration is outside India. In view of the above, it may be said that the parties are allowed to choose a foreign seated arbitration with the application of Indian law.