The seat of arbitration determines jurisdiction for enforcement of awards, allowing execution within that jurisdiction despite asset relocations, emphasizing the need for transparency in asset disclosure.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayers:

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order, or direction to set aside and quash the Impugned Order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-83), Bengaluru, in Com. Ex.No.689/2024, (ANNEXURE A), (b) consequently, restore the execution petition in Com. Ex.No.689/2024 to the file of the Hon'ble LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-83), Bengaluru, with a direction to dispose off the said execution with a period of six (6) months, an , (c) pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, - in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Since the proceedings are closed before the concerned court without issuing notice, notice in the subject petition need not be issued.

3. The issue in the lis stands completely answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sumita Abhishek Sundaram Vs. Sankalpan Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine Kar. 14742. This Court on considering the identical circumstance has held as follows:

8. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and the genesis of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent are a matter of record. The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator which was not acceded to by the respondent. This leads the petitioner to this Court in C.M.P. No. 194 of 2021. This Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court, holds as follows:

“….….….

14. In the light of the vehement opposition to be Bangalore being the center, I deem it appropriate to consider the issue with regard to jurisdiction notwithstanding the parties not arriving at a consensus in terms of Clause 10 (a) of the agreement.

15. Reference to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC LIMITED, in the circumstances is apposite. The Apex Court at paragraph 59, has held as follows:

“59. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix Corpn. Ltd. that Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be rendered ineffective and useless. Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts in jurisdiction of courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitral proceedings in connection with the arbitration in one court exclusively. This is why the section begins with a non obstante clause, and then goes on to state “…where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this part has been made in a court…”

The Apex Court in the case afore-extracted, considering the fact of a part of cause of action having arisen in a particular place, where an application is made at the first instance to be the seat of arbitration. The afore-narrated chain of events have all happened in Bangalore, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BGS SGS SOMA JV (supra), Bangalore will be the seat of arbitration.

16. It is germane to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Patel Road ways Limited v. Prasad Trading Company interpreting Section 20 of the CPC, which determines cause of action. The Apex Court has held as follows:

“The clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that, where the corporation has a subbordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it does not carry on business at that place. It would be a great hardship if, in spite of the corporation having a sub-ordinate office at the place where the cause of action arises (with which in all probability the plaintiff has had dealings), such plaintiff is to be compelled to travel to the place where the corporation has its principal place. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff; and since the corporation has an office at such place, it will also be under no disadvantage. Thus the Explanation provides an alternative locus for the corporation's place of business, not an additional one.