Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Arbitrator’s Procedural Order In Determining ‘Seat’ Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The Delhi Excessive Court docket bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an ‘unique jurisdiction clause’ within the arbitration settlement unequivocally denotes the ‘seat’ of arbitration. The court docket noticed that any opposite dedication made by the Arbitrator with out the categorical written consent of the events solely pertains to a ‘venue’ beneath Part 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court docket subsequently dismissed the Part 29A(5) petition resulting from lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Transient Info:
M/s Viva Infraventure Non-public Restricted (“Petitioner”) was awarded the work associated to Development of 60 meter huge street from Sector 115, 112 Hindon, Pusta to Sector 1, Tech Zone – 4, Larger Noida, Bisrakh Highway, Hindon Highway, Noida (“Contract”) by New Okhla Industrial Improvement Authority (“Respondent”). Sure disputes arose beneath the Contract. Clause 32 of the Contract expressly supplied that the courts at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh shall have jurisdiction in issues arising beneath the Contract.
The Petitioner filed a petition beneath Part 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) earlier than the Allahabad Excessive Court docket looking for appointment of an arbitrator. The Allahabad Excessive Court docket appointed a Sole Arbitrator.
Within the first procedural order, the Sole Arbitrator specified that the seat of arbitration could be ‘New Delhi’. The mandate of the Sole Arbitrator expired throughout the arbitral proceedings. The Petitioner thus approached the Court docket looking for extension of the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator beneath Part 29A(5).
Subject:
Whether or not the dedication of the seat of arbitration as New Delhi within the first procedural order by the Sole Arbitrator would override the alternative of seat expressed within the unique jurisdiction clause current within the arbitration settlement?
Observations:
The Court docket held that the place an arbitration settlement accommodates an ‘unique jurisdiction clause’ for the enforcement of the arbitration settlement, the place recognized within the unique jurisdiction clause will probably be the ‘seat’ of arbitration, and the competent court docket(s) therein shall train supervisory jurisdiction. The court docket noticed that when events vest jurisdiction in a specific court docket for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it have to be presumed that they meant that place to be the ‘seat’ of arbitration as per Part 20(1) of the Act.
The court docket noticed that the phrase ‘Any swimsuit or software for the enforcement of this arbitration clause shall be filed within the competent court docket at Gautam Budh Nagar, no different court docket or every other district or Pradesh or exterior Uttar Pradesh shall have any jurisdiction within the matter‘ in Clause 32 of the Contract unequivocally mirrored the intention of partis to confer unique jurisdiction solely on the courts at Gautam Budh Nagar ‘for enforcement of the arbitration clause’.
The Court docket famous that though the arbitrator had mounted the seat as Delhi within the Procedural Order, the respondent had not consented to it. It famous that the respondent had already filed an software earlier than the Arbitrator looking for clarification/evaluate/modification of the Procedural Order to the restricted extent that New Delhi is merely the venue.
The Court docket held that “the discretion of the arbitrator to repair the venue of arbitration can solely be beneath part 20(3)”. The Sole Arbitrator can not override the phrases of the Contract with out the categorical written consent of the events. It subsequently dominated that Delhi was solely the ‘venue’ for hearings, not the juridical seat. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition owing to a scarcity of territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Improvement Authority
Case Quantity: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 606/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Senior Advocate, together with Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Mr. Kumar Deepraj and Ms. Arushi Rathore, Advocates.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Suvigya Awasthy, together with Mr. Vivek Joshi and Mr. Rohan Gulati, Advocates (PSL Advocates and Solicitors).
Date of Judgment: 01.07.2025
