Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Henna Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
RPS Infrastructure Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arises under section 9 of the arbitration act (Para 1) |
| 2. jurisdiction based on arbitration venue stipulated in agreement. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. mutual decision requirement for jurisdiction not satisfied. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. petition dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7) |
(Video-Conferencing)
C.Hari Shankar, J.
OMP(I) (COMM) 271/2021
1. The dispute between the parties in the present petition, preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act") arises out of 12 Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), all of which were executed on 18th January, 2018. The Arbitration Clause in all these Memoranda is identical, and reads thus:
"9. That all disputes or differences, if any, arising out of or in connection with this MOU shall be first attempted to be resolved through mutual negotiations between the parties, failing which the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator, being appointed jointly by both the parties, for arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision of the named Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The venue of such Arbitrati
The jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings is strictly determined by the stipulated venue in the arbitration agreement; lack of mutual decision on venue limits the court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction for arbitration petitions must align with the exclusive contractually specified jurisdiction, confirming that the High Court lacked authority to entertain the application under Section 1....
A designated seat of arbitration confers exclusive jurisdiction to the designated courts, excluding all others, as established in precedent.
The distinction between 'seat' and 'venue' of arbitration is crucial, with the seat determining jurisdiction, which in this case was Ahmedabad despite the venue being New Delhi.
The designation of 'venue' in an arbitration clause does not imply the 'seat' of arbitration, which must be expressly specified; exclusive jurisdiction remains with civil courts at the location defin....
The court upheld party autonomy, determining that the High Court has jurisdiction to appoint a Sole Arbitrator even with an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating Gurugram as the venue.
The court affirmed exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi courts for arbitration agreements, despite a designated venue in Ranchi, clarifying venue does not denote seat of arbitration.
Point of law : Seat of Arbitration - What constitutes the ‘seat’ of arbitral proceedings - the intention of the parties is germane and that can be gathered from Contract.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
