Jurisdiction in arbitration is determined by the agreed seat, not the location of cause of action; court lacks jurisdiction where arbitration clause specifies exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere.

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of the Work Order/Acceptance Letter dated 21.10.2021.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Plot No. 48, 3^rd Floor, Vishal Tower, Wazirabad, Sector-52, Gurugram-122003. The petitioner is a contractor and service provider operating in the field of mechanical, electrical, and air-conditioning industry and engaged in executing contracts, assignments, and projects related to air-conditioning, electrification, construction, installation and supply of ancillary relevant materials thereto.

3. Respondent No. 1 is also a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of construction and allied services, acting through its principal Director i.e. respondent No. 2.

4. In relation to an upcoming project of the respondents at Uttarakhand Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, (“Project”) the respondents approached the petitioner for air-conditioning services. Accordingly, the petitioner gave its quotation to the respondents on 06.10.2021. After various communications between the parties, vide letter dated 21.10.2021, the respondents accepted the petitioner‟s quotation along with the proposed terms and conditions (“Acceptance Letter”) Accordingly, the respondents placed an order with the petitioner for the HVAC system for the Project for a total contract value of Rs.2,85,93,782/- plus applicable GST.

5. The Acceptance Letter contains the arbitration clause being Clause No. 14 and the same reads as under:-

“14) Arbitration: This subcontract and all other matters, shall in all respect be construed and be operative in conformity with Indian laws and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of court in Ahmedabad only. For any decisions on any arbitration, HPL‟s Managing Director shall be the final authority.”

6. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties under the Acceptance Letter, the respondents had undertaken and assured the petitioner that payments would be made in a timely manner against the monthly Running Bills raised by the petitioner.

7. Since certain disputes arose between the parties, the respondent No. 1 invoked arbitration via letter dated 29.08.2024 titled as “Appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen out of the work order dated 21.10.2021” and requested its own Managing Director i.e. respondent No. 2, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 09.09.2024, stating that in view of the settled law pertaining to the appointment of an Arbitrator, either a consensual person or a neutral person is to be appointed independently by the Court and rejected the appointment of any Arbitrator by respondent No. 2. Petitioner further suggested three names for an Arbitrator. The said names as proposed by the petitioner were denied by the respondents vide letter dated 14.10.2024.

8. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

9. The respondents have also filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act being ARB. P. 46/2025, before the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat and notice has been issued to the petitioner in the same.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of the Respondents

10. At the outset, the respondents have challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition. It is submitted that considering the clear and unambiguous arbitration clause being Clause No. 14 of the Accepta