wherein the parties consent to oust the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of an agreement to arbitrate. However, one of the most controversial aspects of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('the Act) is that it provides extravagant avenues for courts to intervene. This aspect is further complicated where the courts have to determine the intention of the parties in the absence of any express mention in the arbitration agreement, as far as ousting the supervisory jurisdiction of the court is concerned. To do so, the court has to consider various factors vis-a-vis the presumed intention of the parties while entering into the agreement. This comment focuses on the issue of the presumed intention of the parties to exclude ptI ofthe Act, with a specific focus on arbitrations conducted in India. It will also discuss the position taken by Indian courts when approaching questions of implied and express exclusion of their jurisdiction in relation to arbitrations seated outside India, in light of the Balco and Bhatia decisions. In addition, this comment aims to critically evaluate the above principles through examination of the Reliance cases, highlighting their factual matrix in Part II, discussing the ratio delivered by the Court in Part III, providing a constructive analysis of the application of these judgments in Part IV and providing concluding remarks in Part V