Forced Shift Of Arbitration Venue Without Consent Of Party Amounts To Perversity: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that the forced shift of the Arbitration Venue without the consent of a party amounts to perversity and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.The order was passed in a writ petition, challenging a procedural order, by way of which the venue of the 'Closing hearing' was moved from New Delhi to IDRC in London without considering the objections of...
The Telangana High Court has held that the forced shift of the Arbitration Venue without the consent of a party amounts to perversity and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.
The order was passed in a writ petition, challenging a procedural order, by way of which the venue of the 'Closing hearing' was moved from New Delhi to IDRC in London without considering the objections of the respondent
“The forced shift from New Delhi to London would hence not only amount to perversity in terms of the questionable reasoning but also a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction being contrary to the Arbitration Agreement, the ICC Rules of Arbitration as well as The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,” the Division Bench of Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held.
The Arbitration Tribunal had held that since the cost of holding the “Closing hearing” in London was more effective than holding it in Delhi, thus passed the impugned order.
The Bench noted that both the Act and the Rules prioritise the convenience and consent of the parties over the convenience of the Arbitration Tribunal. It was also noted, that out of 5 parties, 4 parties were based in India.
“An alternative location cannot be thrust upon an unwilling party particularly where the order does not disclose a rational basis for reversing the agreed venue of New Delhi. Even if IDRC, London appears to be cost-effective in terms of accommodation, the Arbitral Tribunal could not have overlooked the attending costs and logistics of travel, accommodation and visa requirements of the list of attendees,” the Bench held.
The Bench also noted that while the Act provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, the High Court may interfere if the petitioner can prove the twin requirement of obvious perversity and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction as prescribed by the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC and reiterated in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd.
The Bench concluded that since the alternate sites, as provided by the petitioner herein, were not considered, the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction since the Act and Rules prioritise the convenience of the parties.
Hence, the Tribunal was directed not to act upon the email sent by it, seeking to confirm bookings at IDRC, London. It was also clarified that the interim order would stand only for a limited period until respondents present their case or until further orders, whichever is later.
The matter was adjourned to 23.10.2025.
NMDC Steel Limited vs Danieli and C.Officine Meccaniche SpA
Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel Avinash Desai appearing on behalf of Kopal Sharraf