Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Meenakshi Nehra Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani J. By way of the present petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (`A&C Act' for short), the petitioners seek appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that are stated to have arisen with the respondent from Retail Space Allottees Arrangement dated 08.10.2014.
2. Mr. Navdeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to clause 13 of the agreement which comprises the arbitration agreement between the parties; and contemplates reference of disputes between them to arbitration in accordance with the A&C Act.
3. Considering the somewhat discordant note in the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the provision is extracted herein-below in-extenso:
"13. ARBITRATION
All or any dispute arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of the Application Form/this Arrangement or its termination, including the interpretation and validity thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion failing which the same shall be settled through Arbitration. The Arbitration proceedings shall be governe
The designation of a location for arbitration proceedings does not establish the seat of arbitration, impacting the court's territorial jurisdiction over related petitions.
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the venue of arbitration does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at that venue. Territorial jurisdiction is determined based on t....
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 that a specific arbitration venue in a contract designates the juridical seat, prevailing over general jurisdiction clauses, confirming the validity of the arbitration agreement.
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.
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
