Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
M/S Vserv Insurance Services Pvt Ltd – Petitioner
Versus
M/S DLF Limited & Ors. – Respondents
O.M.P. (COMM) 231 of 2026
Decided On : 07-05-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijay Sharma with Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Ms. Simar Reet Narang and Mr. Mohaan Sonowal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rakesh Khanna with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Mr. Rohan Khanna and Mr. Arvind Singh Yadav, Advocates.
The designation of a venue for arbitration proceedings does not establish the juridical seat if the agreement contains an explicit exclusive jurisdiction clause naming a different court. Courts must interpret the intention of the parties by prioritizing express jurisdiction clauses over procedural venue designations.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to arbitral award - Territorial jurisdiction - Where an agreement specifies a venue for arbitral proceedings and also contains an express clause for exclusive jurisdiction in another territory, the latter determines the juridical seat - Mere mention of a venue does not confer jurisdiction upon courts of that location. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging an arbitral award, contending that a clause in the agreement specifying a particular city for the conduct of proceedings conferred territorial jurisdiction upon the court in that city. The respondent argued that other clauses in the same legal instrument explicitly vested exclusive jurisdiction in a different set of courts, rendering the court approached by the petitioner as lacking the requisite competence.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the clause designating a location for proceedings was intended merely to serve as a convenient venue and not to establish the legal seat of arbitration. The existence of an express exclusive jurisdiction clause within the agreement acts as a contrary indicator, overriding the venue provision for the purpose of determining the forum for judicial intervention.
Issues: Whether the designation of a venue in an arbitration agreement automatically confers territorial jurisdiction upon the courts of that location, overriding an express exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring another forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The juridical seat of an arbitration is established by interpreting the contract as a whole. Where an agreement contains a clear exclusive jurisdiction clause, such provision represents the intention of the parties and precludes the interpretation that a merely mentioned venue constitutes the seat of the arbitration for the purpose of initiating judicial proceedings.
Result: Petition disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over territorial jurisdiction based on arbitration clauses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. exclusive jurisdiction determined by contractual clauses and appointment authority. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. distinction between arbitration 'venue' and jurisdictional 'seat'. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of petition due to lack of local jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) challenging the Arbitral Award dated 11th December, 2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the matter of arbitration between “M/s Vserv Insurance Services Private Limited Versus M/s DLF Limited and Others”.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 38 of the Conveyance Deed dated 11th November, 2014, being the Arbitration Clause between the parties, and the same, as occurring in the Arbitral Award, is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
13. Arbitration clause between the Parties is clause 38 in the conveyance deed dated 11.11.2014 which is reproduced below:
“38. All or any dispute arising out of or relating to or concerning or touching this Conveyance deed including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof shall be referred by any party to a sole arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Vendor and whose decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties. The Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other statutory amendments/modifications thereof for the time being in force, The arbitration proceedings shall be held at an appropriate location lo be decided the Arbitrator. The vendee shall have no objection to such appointment even if the person so appointed, as the sole arbitrator, is on employee or advocat of the vendor or is otherwise connected to Vendor. The Parties agree that no other person shall have the power to appoint the sole arbitrator. The Courts at Jalandhar alone and the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh shall have the jurisdiction.”
xxx xxx xxx”
3. By referring to the aforesaid Clause 38, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Courts at Jalandhar and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, shall alone have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 51 of the Retail/Commercial Office Space Buyer's Agreement (“Space Buyer's Agreement”) dated 25th July, 2005, and the same is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
51. Arbitration
All or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of this Agreement including the interpretation and validity of the terms 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 governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments/modifications thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at an appropriate location in Delhi or New Delhi by a Sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Intending Seller and whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. The Intending Allottee hereby confirms that he/she shall have no objection to this appointment even if the person so appointed, as the arbitrator is an employee or advocate of the Intending Seller or otherwise connected with the Intending Seller and the Intending Allottee confirms that notwithstanding such relationship/connection, the intending Allottee shall have no doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the said Arbitrator. The Courts at Jalandhar alone and the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone shall have the jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx”
5. By
