The SC in the case of Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE^[1] has, inter alia, laid down the following:

i.    Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only applicable to those arbitration agreements where the seat or place of arbitration is in India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law;

ii.   if there is an express designation of a place of arbitration, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the ‘seat’ of arbitration, even if it is designated as the ‘venue’;

iii.  reference to a curial law of a particular place or supranational body of rules in an arbitration agreement is a positive indicium that the place so designated is actually the ‘seat’;

iv.   in cases where the arbitration agreement has no express or implied designation of a place in the arbitration agreement, either in the form of ‘venue’ or ‘curial law’, the closest connection test would be applied to determine the seat of the arbitration; and

v.   where two or more possible places have been designated in the arbitration agreement either expressly or impliedly, such that both equally appear to be the seat of arbitration, then in such cases the conflict may be resolved through recourse to the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.

[1] Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3212.