Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Kush Raj Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
DLF Power & Services Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition filed for earlier judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. definition of location under law crucial for jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. comparison of jurisdiction in previous judgments. (Para 5 , 19 , 20 , 31) |
| 4. limitations on the power of review by high court. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. criteria for establishing jurisdiction in arbitration. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 27) |
| 6. importance of distinguishing venue from seat. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. review petition dismissed; scope of review restricted. (Para 32 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
REVIEW PET. 298/2022
1. A Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking review of the order/judgement dated 12th October, 2022. By this order/judgment, the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") was dismissed by observing that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
2. It is submitted that traditionally the definition of "Location" as provided under the Black's Law Dictionary mean
The High Court lacks inherent power to review its own orders related to jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act unless expressly conferred by statute.
Point of law: Where any disputes arise between parties in respect of or in connection with the agreement then parties shall first endeavour to conciliate the disputes failing which the same shall be ....
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.
The seat of arbitration clause, fixing the seat of arbitration at New Delhi, resulted in courts at New Delhi being exclusively competent to entertain petitions under the 1996 Act, in exercise of its ....
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....
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
