Devadityav Chakravarti & Alok Nayak here talks about the transfer of seats in International Arbitration.
International arbitration has seen its practitioners and experienced arbitrators address and overcome panoply of problems and issues at various stages. One stifling chokepoint for arbitrators which has posed a recurrent risk is the possibility to convene hearings at venues outside the place of arbitration and interference by the courts of the country of origin of a party. In the course of the findings, some general principles of international arbitration are considered so as to ascertain the wisdom that prevails over the tribunals, institutions or courts for that matter. The present article is restricted to summarily revisiting some issues relating to the place of arbitration which continue to haunt international arbitrations. Since every arbitration agreement is cast upon the favourableness of the legal environment surrounding the seat or place of arbitration, investigation is stimulated on the lines of factors contributing to a change of circumstances and its subsequent ramifications on the contractual agreement. A part of the paper is dedicated towards positing how several ubiquitous principles of contract law come into conflict and at the end reach a stalemate. Several case studies are then taken up to explore whether the choice of a place of arbitration is in effect, a banal consideration. Lastly, a fresh Indian perspective is lent with an elaborate criticism of a very recent Supreme Court judgment and how best can it be reconciled with trends in international arbitration.