1. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2017) 7 SCC 678 (Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited) has given rise to a number of matters all over the country in Courts which may not otherwise possess the jurisdiction to receive such arbitration petitions or applications. It must be said that in most of such cases the ratio decidendi in Indus Mobile has been misunderstood, particularly as the dictum in Indus Mobile has to be read down in view of the longstanding rule enunciated in the judgment reported at (1971) 1 SCC 286 (Hakam Singh v. Gammon India Ltd), which was not noticed in Indus Mobile. The judgment in Indus Mobile, however, cannot govern the situation that has arisen in this case even if the dictum therein were to be applied since the agreement between the parties herein did not indicate a chosen seat for the arbitral reference.

2. In Indus Mobile, the agreement between the parties contained a forum selection clause and also a clause designating the seat of the arbitral reference. Both clauses identified Mumbai as the appropriate place. It was in such context that the Supreme Court held that when the Courts a