Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Sikka Motors Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition, under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereby referred to as the `Arbitration Act'), petitioner inter alia seeks a restraint on the respondent from taking any illegal or coercive actions against the petitioner in terms of termination notice dated 25.11.2021 and further seeks a restraint on the respondent from initiating any process of termination till the Arbitrator decides the disputes arisen between the parties.
2. Subject petition was filed contending that parties had entered into a Non-exclusive dealership agreement dated 24.10.2016.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that the dealership agreement though initially for a period of three years, has been renewed on the same terms and conditions from time to time and has been last renewed on 05.08.2020. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a dealer of the respondent since 2004.
4. Order dated 03.12.2021 in these proceedings records that after some arguments, statement of counsel for the petitioner was recorded that the matter was likely to be settled between the parties if the disputes were referred to medi
Parties to an arbitration agreement may confer exclusive jurisdiction to a specific court, making that court sole authority for dispute resolution, irrespective of other claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an agreement determines the courts with jurisdiction to entertain disputes and grant interim protection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the designation of the seat of arbitration confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at that seat, influencing the court's decision on juri....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the court at the seat of arbitration has exclusive jurisdiction over all applications under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act....
Designation of the seat of arbitration must be clearly expressed; conflicting jurisdiction clauses require a harmonious construction favoring the overarching agreement.
The jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator lies with the court where the principal agreement was executed, as per Section 11(6), despite a venue specified in an ancillary agreement.
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.
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
