The High Court lacks inherent power to review its own orders related to jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act unless expressly conferred by statute.

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 means "the specific place or position of a person or thing". Inadvertently, the definition of Location as provided in the Black's Dictionary has not been considered by this Court.

3. It is further asserted that the submissions made by the petitioner had been over looked/not recorded to come to the finding that there is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. This is sequitur to the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein similar Arbitration clause has been interpreted to hold that this Court has jurisdiction. The petitioner had filed a judgment compilation comprising 183 pages during the course of hearing and had relied on the following judgments:

(i) Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. v. Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2020) 2 Arb LR 355;

(ii) Balanchero India Private Limited v. Arthimpact Finserve Pvt. Ltd., Arb. P. 516 of 2020;

(iii) My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumithra Inn, 278 (2021) DLT 297; and

(iv) Virgo Softech Ltd. v. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology, Arb. P. 802 of 2021 and Arb. P. 804 of 2021.

4. In Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) & My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (supra) identical Clause came up for consideration and this Court observed that it is really the seat of arbitration which is akin to an exclusive jurisdictional clause. Similarly, reliance had been placed on Dr. Ravinder Kumar Anand Versus DLF Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Arb. P. No.562/2021. From the aforementioned judgments it is evident that location means the specific place or position of a person or thing. Therefore, it is interchangeable with the word `place' and the word `seat'. However, these Judgements have not been considered which amounts to an error apparent on the fact of the record.

5. It is further submitted that Cravants Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Cooperative Milk Food Federation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Arb. P. No.915/2021 decided on 06th December, 2021 is inapplicable as the Dispute Resolution Clause therein expressly used the word `venue' whereas the phraseology used in the present case is "location" which is akin to "seat".

6. In the instant case, the Clause "the arbitration proceeding shall be held at an appropriate location in New Delhi" actually means the place of arbitration is New Delhi which is akin to exclusive jurisdiction. It is inadvertently observed in paragraph 31 of the judgment under review that while the venue of arbitration may be New Delhi but the seat of arbitration shall be Gurgaon and at High Court at Chandigarh.

7. It is asserted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and there are sufficient grounds for review of the impugned Order dated 12