Absence Of Word 'Seat' Does Not Oust Court's Jurisdiction Conferred By Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that absence of the word 'seat' does not strip the court of its exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes...
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that absence of the word 'seat' does not strip the court of its exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement.
This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of the Work Order/ Acceptance Letter dated 21.10.2021.
The petitioner submitted that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi. The Acceptance Letter was issued from and accepted at the respondents‟ New Delhi office. The respondents also possess a valid GST registration in Delhi.
Per contra, the Respondents submitted that considering the clear and unambiguous arbitration clause being Clause No. 14 of the Acceptance Letter (reproduced above), the arbitration and all other matters, in all respect, are subject to the jurisdiction of “court in Ahmedabad only”. Hence, this Hon‟ble Court does not possess the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court observed that in the present case, clause 14 of the Acceptance Letter clearly provides that in case of any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Letter, the dispute shall be decided by the Ahmedabad Court. Therefore, the coutt at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and appoint the arbitrator.
It further observed that “While interpreting such exclusive jurisdictional clauses it must be borne in mind, that when parties agree in the arbitration clause/ agreement to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular Court for adjudication of any disputes thereof, it is to be presumed that they intended that Court only to have supervisory control.”
Accordingly, the present application was dismissed.
Case Title: SNS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. versus M/S HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
Case Number: ARB. P. 2130/2024
Judgment Date: 09/09/2025
Click Here To Read/Download The Order