According to PASL Wind, two Indian parties can choose a foreign seat to arbitrate their disputes. Such an award will be a foreign award and subject to Part II of the ACA. When two Indian parties opt for a foreign seat, they also choose to subject themselves to lesser scrutiny of the arbitral award compared to a domestic arbitration. For instance, by selecting Switzerland as the seat, disputing Indian parties would be treated as engaged in an international commercial arbitration and subject to a lower level of scrutiny than in a domestic arbitration in Switzerland. While most grounds for setting aside an award are identical for ICA and domestic arbitration in Switzerland, the threshold is high for both. However, the scope of review on the merits is wider for a domestic award. Therefore, Indian parties engaging in arbitration in foreign countries like Switzerland would be entitled to marginally milder scrutiny and, in countries such as England and Belgium, to no different scrutiny. Consider why two Indian parties, particularly those with the resources to arbitrate outside India, would willingly subject themselves to a higher level of scrutiny for their arbitral awards when they could potentially benefit from a comparatively milder level of scrutiny both in the seat country and during the enforcement stage in India.
Source: Barandbench
