Can a foreign arbitral award be challenged in Indian courts in this case?

No. Because the arbitration was seated in London under ICC Rules, Part II of the 1996 Act applied and Indian courts could not entertain a challenge to the London awards.

What showed that the seat of arbitration was outside India?

The ICC indicated London as the seat since the contract lacked a seat clause, and the parties proceeded accordingly; the award was made in London.

Did the parties choose Indian law for the arbitration agreement?

No express law or seat was chosen. By following ICC directions and proceeding in London, the parties accepted a foreign seat.

What did the Supreme Court ultimately do?

It allowed IMAX’s appeal, holding that the challenge in India was not maintainable and upholding the London-seated awards.

Why is the seat of arbitration important?

The seat decides the court of primary supervision. A foreign seat usually means Indian courts cannot set aside the award; only enforcement may be examined in India.

Imax Corporation v. M/S E-City Entertainment Corp

Imax Corporation v. M/S E-City Entertainment Corp.

Supreme Court of India 2017 2017 SCC OnLine SC 239 International Arbitration 7 min read

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India • PUBLISH_DATE: 02 Nov 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: foreign award challenge in India, seat of arbitration, ICC Rules SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: London seat, supervisory court, Part II exclusion

```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court held that the ICC awards made in London could not be challenged in India. The parties accepted a foreign seat under the ICC’s direction. With London as the seat, the supervisory court was foreign, so an Indian set-aside challenge was not maintainable.

Issues

Can awards made outside India be challenged before Indian courts?

Rules

When parties choose (or accept) a foreign seat, the courts of that seat supervise the arbitration.
Proceedings conducted under ICC Rules with a foreign seat exclude an Indian set-aside challenge to the award.
Indian courts may still examine enforcement, but not set aside a foreign-seated award.

Facts (Timeline)

2000: IMAX (Canada) leased six projection systems to E-City (India) under a Master Agreement with ICC arbitration.

No express seat or governing law stated for the arbitration agreement.

ICC Secretariat recommended London as the seat since the contract had no seat clause.

Parties proceeded with the ICC process accordingly.

February 2006: Tribunal issued a Partial Final Award on liability with interest and costs in favour of IMAX.

Disputes between the parties had escalated by then.

2009: E-City challenged the ICC awards before the Bombay High Court.

High Court treated India as proper jurisdiction; matter went up to the Supreme Court.

Timeline of events in Imax Corporation v. E-City Entertainment

Arguments

Appellant (IMAX)

Seat fixed as London under ICC administration; Indian courts lack jurisdiction to set aside.
Parties accepted ICC Rules; supervision lies with courts at the seat.

Respondent (E-City)

Indian law and courts should apply to disputes involving Indian party and performance.
Challenged the awards in Bombay High Court as maintainable.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Since the ICC administered the arbitration with London as the seat, Indian courts could not entertain a set-aside challenge to the awards rendered there. The proper forum was the court at the seat.

The petitions in India to challenge the London awards were held not maintainable.

Ratio

The seat decides the supervisory jurisdiction; with a foreign seat, Indian courts cannot set aside the award.
Proceeding under ICC Rules and accepting a foreign seat excludes an Indian set-aside challenge.

Why It Matters

This case clarifies a frequent exam and practice doubt: if the seat is abroad, the challenge lies there—not in India. It supports certainty for cross-border contracts using ICC arbitration.

Key Takeaways

Seat rules. The seat selects the supervising court.
No Indian set-aside. Foreign-seated awards aren’t set aside in India.
ICC pathway. ICC’s designation of a seat is effective if parties proceed.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: SEAT = SUPERVISE

Find the Seat: Where did ICC fix it? London.
Find the Court: Courts at the seat supervise.
Find the Route: No Indian set-aside; only enforcement review if needed.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can awards passed outside India be challenged in Indian courts?

Rule: Foreign seat → foreign supervisory court; ICC seat designation followed by parties excludes Indian set-aside.

Application: ICC fixed London; parties proceeded; awards made in London. Hence, Indian challenge not maintainable.

Conclusion: Appeal allowed; Indian challenges dismissed.

Glossary

Seat of Arbitration: The legal home of the arbitration; its courts supervise the process.
Set-Aside: A court action to annul an award in the courts of the seat.
ICC Rules: Procedural rules of the International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration.