The designated seat of arbitration creates exclusive jurisdiction for resolving disputes as per contract, regardless of the place of contract execution or asset location.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The instant arbitration application has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, ‘Arbitration Act’) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 22.11.2018.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the parties had entered into an agreement wherein, Clause 14 was inserted which states that in case any disputes/differences arise between them in connection with any matter relating to the agreement, the matter would be referred to the arbitrator, who shall decide the dispute between them as per the provisions contained under the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel further submits that both the parties agreed that seat and venue of the arbitration shall be at Jaipur.

3. Learned counsel submits that now the dispute has arisen between the parties with regard to imposition of the Goods and Services Tax liability upon the petitioner hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent for giving consent for settlement of dispute through arbitration at Jaipur. Learned counsel further submits that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”, reported in (2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678, the dispute can be referred to an arbitrator in terms of the agreement where the parties to the agreement has agreed to settle their dispute at the seat and place mentioned therein hence, under these circumstances, the appropriate orders be passed for settlement of the dispute arising between the parties by appointing an arbitrator.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioner, as neither the agreement in question was executed at Jaipur nor the properties are situated at Jaipur. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that mere mentioning of the fact that the seat and venue of the arbitration would be at Jaipur, would not give jurisdiction to this Court to appoint an arbitrator to settle the disputes or differences arisen between the parties.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction lies with the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the word “Court” has been well defined under Section 2 (e) of the Arbitration Act.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no fruitful purpose would be achieved by the petitioner by compelling the respondent to approach the arbitrator, in case, the arbitrator is appointed by this Court for settlement of their disputes, rather both the parties would feel inconvenient to travel from Mumbai to Jaipur. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “M/s Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aditya Kumar Chatterjee SLP (C) No.17397-17398/2021.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, this application is liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

9. This fact is not in dispute that the agreement dated 22.11.2018 was executed between the parties at Mumbai. This fact is also not in dispute that the assets of the parties are also situated at Mumbai. The dispute between the parties is of imposition of the GST liability upon the petitioner wh