2022/DHC/005349

ARB.P. 869/2022 Page 1 of 14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on:

16^th November, 2022

Pronounced on:06^th December, 2022

+

ARB.P. 869/2022

MR. KUSH RAJ BHATIA

S/o Mr. Rajesh Bhatia,

R/oC-8, Friends Colony,

Near Mata Ka Mandir on Main Road

Sriniwaspuri S.O South Delhi-11 0065

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Akhil Salhar, Mr. Sunanda

Tulsyan and Mr. Arnav Pal Singh,

Advocates.

versus

M/S DLF POWER & SERVICES LTD.

(erstwhile M/s DLF Utilities Limited)

l0^th Floor, Gateway Tower, Phase-Ill,

DLF Cyber City, Gurugram-122002

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Taurn

Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

REVIEW PET. 298/2022

1.

A Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has

been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking review of the order/judgement

Digitally Signed

By:PRIYANKA ANEJA

Signing Date:06.12.2022

17:43:37

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/005349

ARB.P. 869/2022 Page 2 of 14

dated 12^th October, 2022. By this order/ judgment, the petition under Section

11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as

“Act, 1996”) was dismissed by observing that this Court had no territorial

jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

2.

It is submitted that traditionally the definition of “Location” as

provided under the Black’s Law Dictionary means “the specific place or

position of a person or thing”. Inadvertently, the definition of Location as

provided in the Black‟s Dictionary has not been considered by this Court.

3.

It is further asserted that the submissions made by the petitioner had

been over looked/not recorded to come to the finding that there is no

territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. This is sequitur to the

judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein similar

Arbitration clause has been interpreted to hold that this Court has

jurisdiction. The petitioner had filed a judgment compilation comprising 183

pages during the course of hearing and had relied on the following

judgments:

Digitally Signed

By:PRIYANKA ANEJA

Signing Date:06.12.2022

17:43:37

Signature Not Verified

2022/DHC/005349

ARB.P. 869/2022 Page 3 of 14

4.

In Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) &My Preferred Transformation

and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (supra) identical Clause came up for consideration

and this Court observed that it is really the seat of arbitration which is akin

to an exclusive jurisdictional clause. Similarly, reliance had been placed on

means the specific place or position of a person or thing. Therefore, it is

interchangeable with the word „place‟ and the word „seat‟. However, these

Judgements have not been considered which amounts to an error apparent on

the fact of the record.

5.

It is further submitted that Cravants Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand

No.915/2021 decided on 06^th December, 2021 is inapplicable as the Dispute

Resolution Clause therein expressly used the word „venue’ whereas the

phraseology used in the present case is “location” which is akin to “seat”.

6.

In the instant case, the Clause “the arbitration proceeding shall be

held at an appropriate location in New Delhi” actually means the place of

arbitration is New Delhi which is akin to exclusive jurisdiction. It is

inadvertently observed in paragraph 31 of the judgment under review that

while the venue of arbitration may be New Delhi but the seat of arbitration

shall be Gurgaon and at High Cou