INDIAN COURTS CANNOT APPOINT ARBITRATORS IN FOREIGN-SEATED ARBITRATION: A COMMENTARY ON THE 2025 SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
AUTHOR – DR.VANDITA CHAHAR, ASST.PROFESSOR AT JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
BEST CITATION – DR.VANDITA CHAHAR, INDIAN COURTS CANNOT APPOINT ARBITRATORS IN FOREIGN-SEATED ARBITRATION: A COMMENTARY ON THE 2025 SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (14) OF 2025, PG. 163-169, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
Case Title:
Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A. & Ors.
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date:21 November 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1342
Court: Supreme Court of India
Introduction
In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the constitution of an arbitral tribunal in India. The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, had entered into a Buyer-Seller Agreement (BSA) with Fludor Benin S.A. The BSA and its addendum provided that arbitration would take place in Benin and that Benin law would govern disputes. Subsequent contracts (Sales Contracts and High Sea Sale Agreements) were held to be ancillary and not capable of altering the main dispute-resolution clause in the BSA. The Court reaffirmed its earlier jurisprudence (e.g., in BALCO, Mankastu, BGS SGS SOMA JV, PASL Wind Solutions) that where the parties have deliberately chosen a foreign seat and foreign curial law, Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act (which includes Section 11) does not apply, and hence Indian courts have no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.