CourtSupreme Court of India
Decision6 September 2012
CollectionArbitration
FormatCRUX Case Note
The Crux
BALCO placed the territoriality principle at the centre of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and distinguished the legal significance of the seat from the physical venue.
What the Court held
The Constitution Bench held that Part I of the 1996 Act is territorially linked to arbitrations seated in India and developed the seat-centric approach to supervisory jurisdiction.
Why it matters
Seat selection is not drafting detail. It determines the procedural law and the courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration.
CRUX practice note
This note isolates the proposition most likely to matter in practice. The precise ratio, factual limits and subsequent treatment of the authority should always be checked against the judgment itself before professional reliance.
Official source
The link below is to the Supreme Court of India’s official website or judgment repository.
Official Supreme Court source
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. — official court source
The judgment text remains controlling. This CRUX note is an editorial summary for general information.
This Insight is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.