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 11 due to jurisdictional conflicts.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

(By Video Conference on account of COVID-19)

1. These petitions have been preferred under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

2. The contract between the petitioner and the respondent, whereunder reference to arbitration is sought, contains, inter alia, the following Clauses:

"8.1. Governing Law

This Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by and construed under the Laws of India without regard to conflicts of Laws provisions. Subject to resolution of disputes by arbitration, courts at the place where the Main Premises is located will have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over matters arising out of this Agreement, especially for granting interim relief and enforcing arbitral awards.

8.2. Arbitration

Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, or at Law, or the breach, termination or invalidity of this Agreement, that cannot be settled amicably by agreement of the Parties to this Agreement shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended from time to time), by one arbitrator mutually appointed by the Parties. The seat of arbitration shall be Delhi, India and the venue of arbitration shall be India."

3. Clause 8.1, thus, confers exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising out of the agreement "especially for granting interim relief and enforcement of arbitral awards" on courts at the place where the main premises of the petitioner is located. Admittedly, the main premises of the petitioner are located at Gurgaon.

4. Clause 8.2, on the other hand, fixes the seat of arbitration at Delhi and the venue of arbitration as India.

5. While, ordinarily, a court having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration, fixed by contract, would be competent to exercise jurisdiction under Sections 9, 11 and 34 of the 1996 Act, this Court has, in its judgment in Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Cyber Approach Workspace LLP, MANU/DE/2071/2020 following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd., (2020)5 SCC 399: taken the view that, where the exclusive jurisdiction clause confers exclusive jurisdiction in respect of arbitral proceedings on a court located elsewhere, the Section 11 petition would have to be filed in the High Court having jurisdiction over that place. For ready reference, the relevant passages from the judgment of this Court in Cars24 Services may be reproduced thus:

"49. The issue before the Supreme Court was with respect to the courts having jurisdiction to entertain a Section 11 petition, as in the present case. The Supreme Court held that the fixing of Hong Kong as the "place of arbitration" resulted ipso facto in Hong Kong becoming the "seat of arbitration". On the attention of the Supreme Court being invited to Clause 17.1, which conferred jurisdiction on courts at New Delhi, in respect of the MOU, the Supreme Court observed, in paras 25 and 27 of the report, thus:....;

50. As such, the Supreme Court held that once the seat of arbitration has been fixed as Hong Kong, if exclusive jurisdiction, for obtaining interim relief, was required to be vested in courts at New Delhi, the agreement had necessarily to specifically so state. It was for this reason, opined the Supreme Court, that Clause 7.3 had been particularly inserted in the a