Lex fori as a tacit choice or closest link While the search for the main contractual law, if governed by Regulation Rome I (EC) No. 593/2008 of 17 June 2008), must be carried out on the basis of the following link test, this test does not automatically apply to all other legal orders and, in any event, to arbitration agreements. Secondly, the choice of the seat of arbitration would amount to a tacit election of the right of that seat (lex fori). On 11.02.2006, a partial decision was rendered, stating that the respondent violated that agreement and that she had to pay damages to the complainant. On 05.09.2006, the respondent challenged the fact that the complainant had no legal status and that the law firm representing the complainant was not entitled to follow the arbitration. In addition, the parties` intention to exclude Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was examined. It was decided that the existing legislation was Singapore law and the rules, as agreed between the parties, were ICC rules. The ICC had chosen the seat of arbitration as London. It was important that the parties made an explicit decision on the implementation of the arbitration, that is, the ICC rules.
Given that the parties had agreed to the ICC, it could be assumed that they were aware of the determination of the rules, that the place of arbitration would be decided in accordance with ICC rules. The court decided that the parties intended to exclude Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in 1996, can be inferred from the agreement in which they had decided the arbitration rules as ICC rules and thus the willingness to proceed with arbitration outside India. In addition, the Supreme Court also referred to a case that was decided by the Swedish Supreme Court from a passage to Redfern- Hunter: the lex fori, or the court law in which the exemption is sued, regulates all procedural cases that differ from material rights. The arbitration agreement, which is part of the main contact, is separate from it, its own right must be determined only on the basis of it. That is what the Supreme Court has decided, first; If the parties were to resort to justice, they could only go to the courts in Singapore under the clause. Therefore, any non-arbitrary quarrel that may arise from the agreement or any dispute over the accuracy or validity of the award could only be resolved by the Singapore courts. The widely accepted doctrine of dissociability and the existence of two separate agreements – or the essential parts of the main agreement and the arbitration agreement that are part of this agreement – mean that the non-existence, non-validity or inefficiency of the principal contract does not affect the arbitration agreement. On 28.09.2000, the petitioner and respondent reached an agreement on the provision of large-format projection systems for cinemas throughout India.