A designated seat of arbitration confers exclusive jurisdiction to the designated courts, excluding all others, as established in precedent.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issue raised by the appellant in the present appeal is no more res-integra. The question regarding the jurisdiction of the concerned Court to hear objections under Section 34 / Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1996’) has been well-settled by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited Vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited & Ors. reported in [ (2017) 7 SCC 678 ]. The fact that the Supreme Court after considering that the arbitration clause and the aspect regarding Section 2 (1)(e) as well as Section 20 of the Act of 1996 proceeded to hold as under:-

“20. A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the moment the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of arbitration is Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Mumbai Courts. Under the Law of Arbitration, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to suits filed in courts, a reference to "seat" is a concept by which a neutral venue can be chosen by the parties to an arbitration clause. The neutral venue may not in the classical sense have jurisdiction that is, no part of the cause of action may have arisen at the neutral venue and neither would any of the provisions of Section 16 to 21 of the CPC be attracted. In arbitration law however, as has been held above, the moment "seat" is determined, the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest Mumbai courts with exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties.

21. It is well settled that where more than one court has jurisdiction, it is open for parties to exclude all other courts. For an exhaustive analysis of the case law, see Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2013) 9 SCC 32. This was followed in a recent judgment in B.E. Simoese Von Staraburg Niedenthal and Another v. Chhastisgarh Investment Limited, (2015) 12 SCC 225. Having regard to the above, it is clear that Mumbai courts alone have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts in the country, as the juridical seat of arbitration is at Mumbai. This being the case, the impugned judgment is set aside. The injunction confirmed by the impugned judgment will continue for a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, so that the respondents may take necessary steps under Section 9 in the Mumbai Court. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.”

2. It would be relevant to quote Section 20 of the Act of 1996 as under:-

“20. Place of arbitration:-

(1) The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration.

(2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub- section (1), the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties.

(3) Notwithstanding sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), the arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, meet at any place it considers appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, or for inspection of documents, goods or other property.”

3. The said judgment passed in the case of Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited (supra) has again been reiterated by the learned Single Judge of this Court while passing the order on similar lines in the case of TVS Motors Company Limited Vs. M/s. Bagaria Motors reported in [ 2023 :RJ-JP:19616]. The relevant paras of said judgment are quoted as under:-

"13. It is noted that the ASC agreement was exe