JUDGMENT :

1. The succinct distinction between ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration is one of the most hotly debated aspects of arbitration in India, though for some time a quietus was put, to it, by a Five-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhartiya Aluminium Company (for short, BALCO) Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC, (2012) 9 SCC 552, but unfortunately after a decade of it’s authoritative pronouncement, once again the debate between the ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ has reappeared, in the wake of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 568.

2. This enigma is placed before me through the present case, where the counter arguments are advanced on issue, whether prescription of mere, ‘venue’ in the arbitration clause contained in the ‘Lease Agreement’ would confer jurisdiction on this Court to appoint an Arbitrator, as prayed in the application, particularly when the subject matter of the suit would fall outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The applicant before me is a Private Limited Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, inter alia, engaged