Designation of the seat of arbitration must be clearly expressed; conflicting jurisdiction clauses require a harmonious construction favoring the overarching agreement.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petitions, being O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 43/2026 and O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 44/2026, have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act]. In both Petitions, the prayers are identically worded and, in substance, read as follows:

"a) Grant an interim injunction restraining the Respondent, from alienating, transferring, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with its respective portions of the project land, and from issuing or publishing any further public notices, statements, or communications that dilute, impair, or challenge the Petitioner‘s development rights in the project;

b) Restrict and restrain the Respondent from acting upon the Termination Letters and the Public Notice, and stay the effect and operation thereof during the pendency of the present proceedings;

c) Direct the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the title, nature, character, possession, and physical condition of the project land, including any constructions or developments thereon;

d) Restrain and direct the Respondent from taking any action that would nullify, withdraw, suspend, or otherwise affect the validity, operation, or efficacy of any statutory approvals, sanctions, permissions, or clearances already obtained by the Petitioner for the development and execution of the Project and any further action that Petitioner may take of the similar manner; and

e) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. At the outset, in both Petitions, the Petitioner has asserted that this Court possesses the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petitions under Section 9 of the A&C Act, in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties designating Delhi as the place of arbitration.

3. It is submitted that the designation of Delhi as the place of arbitration constitutes the juridical seat, thereby conferring supervisory jurisdiction upon the Courts at Delhi in relation to all arbitration-related proceedings.

4. Since the limited issue that arises for consideration pertains to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petitions, which have been filed by the same Petitioner and arise out of similar contracts, for the sake of convenience and consistency, reference shall be made to the particulars of O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 44/2026, unless the context otherwise requires.

5. The reliefs sought in the present Petitions arise out of and are predicated upon the Joint Development Agreement dated 14.08.2014, JDA and, in particular, Clause nos. 19 and 20 thereof, being the arbitration clause between the parties, which reads as under:

"19. That in the event of any dispute or difference arising between the Parties hereto, relating to or connected with this Agreement or claims pertaining thereto or as to the meaning or construction of the terms and conditions contained herein or application thereof, during the subsistence of this Agreement or after the termination thereof, the Parties shall mutually try to resolve such disputes & differences amicably and in good faith through mediation and conciliation within 15 (Fifteen) days of the said dispute of difference or within such extended period as the Parties ma