Could parties still get interim relief in India?

Interim relief is narrower with a foreign seat. Choosing a foreign seat means limited Indian court involvement; plan relief measures during contract drafting.

What should contracts state to avoid confusion?

Clearly specify the seat, governing law, and curial law. Also include a clear method and timeline for appointing arbitrators.

Does a foreign seat always exclude Section 11?

Generally yes, because the law of the seat governs procedure. Exact outcomes depend on the arbitration clause wording.

M/S Dozco India P. Ltd. v. M/S Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd.

Q: Why did the seat matter so much?

The seat decides the procedural law and supervisory courts. With Seoul as the seat, Korean curial law applied and Indian courts did not appoint under Section 11(6).

Supreme Court 2011 (2011) 6 SCC 179 International Arbitration 6–8 min read Bench: Not specified

CASE_TITLE PRIMARY_KEYWORDS SECONDARY_KEYWORDS Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 02 Nov 2025

Quick Summary

Core Point: When parties pick a foreign governing law and a foreign seat of arbitration, Indian courts generally do not appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6).

The distributorship agreement chose Republic of Korea law and fixed Seoul, Korea as the seat. The Supreme Court read the arbitration clause and held that the arbitration must happen in Seoul; therefore, Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act (including Section 11(6)) stood excluded.

```

Issues

Do Indian courts have power under Section 11(6) to appoint an arbitrator for an international commercial arbitration with a foreign seat?

Rules

Contract Clause

Article 22.1 (Governing Law): “This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Korea.”

Arbitration Law

Courts first read the arbitration agreement to see if the dispute is arbitrable, then look to the curial law (law of the seat) to conduct the reference.

Seat Presumption

If the parties do not expressly choose curial law, the presumption is that they intend the law of the seat to govern the arbitration procedure.

Facts (Timeline)

View Timeline Image

Parties: Petitioner: M/S Dozco India Pvt. Ltd. (India). Respondent: M/S Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. (South Korea).

02 Feb 2004: Distributorship agreement executed. Petitioner appointed as exclusive distributor for India and Bhutan. Dispute resolution: arbitration.

01 Sep 2007: Petitioner issued notice seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Appointment did not happen.

Section 9 Application: Petitioner approached Madras High Court for interim injunction. Respondent objected to jurisdiction.

Supreme Court: Question escalated: can Indian courts appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) when the seat is Seoul and Korean law governs?

Arguments

Appellant (Dozco)

Asked Indian courts to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6).
Sought protection in India via Section 9 interim reliefs.

Respondent (Doosan)

Objected to Indian court jurisdiction for Section 11(6) appointment.
Relied on the contract: Korean law + Seoul seat = Indian courts should not intervene.

Judgment

The Supreme Court read Articles 23.1 (arbitration) and 22.1 (governing law) together and held that the disputes must be settled by arbitration in Seoul, Korea. This shows that the seat is Seoul. With a foreign seat, Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act (including Section 11(6)) is excluded.

Bottom line: Indian courts should respect the parties’ express choice of governing law and seat, and avoid unnecessary interference.

Ratio Decidendi

Express choice of foreign governing law and foreign seat points to foreign curial law and excludes Section 11(6) power of Indian courts.
In absence of explicit curial law, the law of the seat governs procedure.

Why It Matters

This case gives clarity to businesses drafting cross-border contracts. If you want Indian courts to appoint arbitrators, choose India as the seat. If you choose a foreign seat, expect the foreign procedural law to apply and limited Indian court involvement.

Key Takeaways

Seat = Procedure: The seat legally anchors the arbitration.
Foreign seat → Part I out: Section 11(6) appointment by Indian courts is excluded.
Draft clearly: State the seat and the curial law to avoid disputes.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Korea Seat, India Beat” — Korean law + Seoul seat → Indian Section 11(6) takes a back seat.

Check Clause: Governing law + seat named?
Map Procedure: If seat is foreign → foreign curial law.
Gatekeep S.11: Foreign seat → no Section 11(6) appointment by Indian courts.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can Indian courts appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) where the agreement picks Korean law and Seoul as the seat?

Rule

Seat decides curial law. Foreign seat typically excludes Part I of the Indian Act, including Section 11(6).

Application

Agreement points to Korean law; arbitration to be held in Seoul. So Korean procedural law applies.

Conclusion

Indian courts should not appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) in this case.

Glossary

Seat of Arbitration: The legal home of the arbitration. It fixes the procedural law and court supervision.
Curial Law: The law that governs arbitration procedure (usually the law of the seat).
Section 11(6): Provision under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act for court appointment of arbitrators when parties fail to appoint.

FAQs

The seat decides the procedural law and the supervisory courts. With Seoul as the seat, Korean curial law applied and Indian courts did not appoint under Section 11(6).

Interim relief can be complicated with a foreign seat. The key takeaway is: picking a foreign seat reduces Indian court involvement; plan relief strategy at the drafting stage.

State the seat, the governing law, and ideally the curial law. Also set a clear method and timeline for appointing arbitrators.

Generally yes, because the foreign seat brings foreign procedural law. But outcomes depend on clause wording; precise drafting is essential.

Dozco v. Doosan: Foreign governing law + Seoul seat → foreign curial law → Indian courts won’t appoint under Section 11(6).