Arbitration Clauses Restricted to Specific Jurisdictions Cannot Be Expanded by Implied Conduct: Allahabad High Court - 2026-06-03

Beyond the Contract: Allahabad HC Clarifies Limits of Arbitration Clauses

In a significant ruling concerning the interpretation of commercial agreements, the Allahabad High Court has underscored the importance of contractual boundaries in arbitration. The Lucknow Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, set aside an arbitral award, asserting that an arbitration clause’s scope cannot be expanded beyond the written terms of a contract based merely on the conduct of parties.

The Backdrop: A Geographic Dispute

The case originated from a 2016 agreement between M/S Regenvo Mobile Private Limited, an exclusive dealer of 'VIVO' mobiles in Uttar Pradesh, and M/S Siyogi Enterprises, an advertising agency. While the agreement intended to secure advertising services within the city of Lucknow, subsequent work orders expanded these services to various other districts across the State.

When the agreement was terminated in 2017, disputes arose over unpaid invoices. Siyogi Enterprises invoked the arbitration clause, and the Sole Arbitrator passed an award covering work done both within and outside Lucknow. Regenvo Mobile contested this, arguing that the arbitration clause was strictly limited to services rendered within Lucknow, and the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating claims for work performed elsewhere.

Arguments: The Battle of Interpretation

Counsel for the appellant (Regenvo) contended that the Arbitrator and the lower Commercial Court committed a "patent illegality" by ignoring the introductory covenants of the contract, which expressly limited the scope of the agreement to Lucknow. They argued that there was no supplementary agreement or official note justifying an expansion of the arbitration clause’s jurisdiction.

Conversely, the respondent (Siyogi Enterprises) argued that the appellants’ own conduct—issuing work orders for other districts and clearing related payments—demonstrated that both parties had effectively modified the contract. They urged that the principle of "party autonomy" allowed for a broader interpretation of the agreement based on the established course of behavior.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

The High Court drew a clear line, emphasizing that arbitration is a creature of contract. Referencing established jurisprudence, including cases like Emaar (India) Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. , the Court reiterated that arbitration clauses must be strictly construed.

The Court observed that while parties may vary their contracts, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a modification to provide evidence. Merely because work was performed outside the agreed area does not automatically extend the jurisdiction of the arbitration clause originally intended for a specific zone. The Court distinguished the present case from matters of general territorial jurisdiction, focusing instead on the narrow, voluntary scope of the provided arbitration agreement.

Key Observations

The judgment explicitly highlights the danger of judicial overreach:

• "The Sole Arbitrator by returning a finding which is not based on any evidence and material on record and merely is based on presumption… is beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and thus vitiates the award."
• "Contract is the foundation of the legal relationship… it is not permissible for the Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves."
• "This Court finds that as far as the agreement is concerned, it clearly indicated in the introductory covenants that the appellants were the exclusive dealer of 'VIVO Mobiles' in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the respondents were engaged for the purposes of advertising and that too was confined to provide such services in the city of Lucknow."

Final Decision: A Path for Future Adjudication

The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the award in its entirety. Crucially, the Bench clarified that the setting aside of the award does not deprive the respondent of its right to claim for pending work. The parties were granted the liberty to pursue money claims related to Lucknow work through proper arbitration, while any claims regarding work performed in other districts must be agitated before the appropriate judicial forum in accordance with the law.

This ruling serves as a timely reminder for commercial entities: if you intend to expand the scope of an agreement, do so in writing. As the Court demonstrated, silence and conduct alone are insufficient to widen the "four corners" of an arbitration mandate.