IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the designation of a place of arbitration as the 'venue' in an arbitration clause indicates the intention to anchor arbitral proceedings to that place, making it the seat of the arbitral proceedings, and determining the jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner has submitted this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) for appointment of an Arbitrator. The dispute between the parties relates to non-payment of rent. In this regard the petitioner’s counsel has referred to Clause 22 of the Lease Deed dated 09.07.2014, which lays down a mechanism for adjudication of disputes by way of Arbitration. Clause 22 of the Lease Deed is as follows-

“22. Any dispute or claim between the parties hereto arising out of or relating to this agreement, or its implementation and/or its effect, or the breach, termination, due to efflux of time or otherwise, or invalidity thereto, either during its subsistence or after its termination, shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitration shall be held at Mumbai.”

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had executed a Lease Deed with the Aircel Companies respondent for installation of a Mobile Tower on a plot of land measuring 2100 sq. feet of 3 Kathas 9 Lechas covered by Dag No.183 of Patta No.60, located in the village Khataniapara under Dhula Police Station in Darrang district. The Aircel Companies sold its infrastructure division to Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. (CNIL). Thereafter, the CNIL was acquired/owned by the GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (GIL), the present respondent. As per Clause 22 of the Lease Deed, any dispute or claim between the parties arising out of the agreement or it’s implementation etc. was to be referred to the arbitration of a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act. Though Clause 22 of the Lease Agreement stated that the arbitration would be held at Mumbai, the Lease Deed having been executed in Assam and as the cause of action had arisen in Assam, the petitioner submitted an Arbitration Notice dated 25.10.2023 to appoint a Guwahati based Arbitrator, for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. As the respondents did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present application for appointment of an Arbitrator.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the Arbitration Clause provides that the arbitration shall be held at Mumbai, there is no bar for this Court to appoint an Arbitrator, inasmuch as, the cause of action pertains to Darrang District, Assam, where the Lease Deed/Agreement was executed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above reasons, the situs/seat of the arbitration proceeding should be in Assam, as the Courts in Assam would have jurisdiction over the matter in dispute. Consequently, this Court should appoint an Arbitrator, even though the venue of arbitration may be held at Mumbai or any other place, as may be decided by the Arbitrator and the parties.

5. In support of his submission that this Court should appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, reported in 2022 4 Supreme 337; BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC Limited, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 234 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Saumya Mining Limited & Another (Arbitration Petition No.32/2022).

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that this Court cannot appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, in view of the fact that the parties had agreed that the seat of the arbitration would be at Mumbai. He submits that the use of the word “venue” for the arbitration proceedings is absent from the Arbitration Clause. As the seat of the arbitration proceedings is to