Delhi HC appointed sole arbitrator under Section 11 A&C Act despite non-receipt of notice, holding seat remains Delhi based on agreement terms and citing BGS SGS case on cause of action irrelevance.
Appointed Ms. Ritambhra Kalra as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes per Delhi seat.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~16
Through: Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Mr. Vishal Sharma, Ms. Taruna, Advs.
versus
M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Swati Surbhi, Mr. Pulkit Kamboj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral )
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 440/2024 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 1 of 7
“4) In case of dispute the jurisdiction shall of Kanpur Court. Further the same shall be compulsory referred by aggrieved party to the Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
On the basis of the above, it is submitted that, the parties agreed that Kanpur Court would be vested with jurisdiction in the matter and that Kanpur is also the seat of arbitration. It is submitted that the above quoted printed clause, in the invoices issued by the petitioner himself serves clear
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 440/2024
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 2 of 7
“contrary indicia” showing that Delhi is not intended to be the seat of arbitration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 440/2024 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 3 of 7
parties.
“32. On a conspectus of the aforesaid judgments, the position of law that emerges is that when the contract contains an arbitration clause that specifies a “venue”, thereby anchoring the arbitral proceedings thereto, then the said “venue” is really the “seat” of arbitration. In such a situation the Courts having supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process, notwithstanding that the contract contains a clause seeking to confer “exclusive jurisdiction” on a different court.
33. In the present case, the relevant clause in the LOA purporting to confer “exclusive jurisdiction” is a generic clause, and does not specifically refer to arbitration proceedings. For this reason, the same also does not serve as a “contrary indicia” to suggest that the Delhi is merely the “venue” and not the “seat” of Arbitration. As such, the same cannot be construed or applied so as to denude the jurisdiction of the Courts having jurisdiction over the “seat” of Arbitration.”
“42. In Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited MANU/DE/5224/2023, another learned single judge of this court referring to several judgments held that the choice of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 440/2024 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 4 of 7
Delhi as the venue of arbitration was demonstrative of the fact that the arbitral proceedings were intended to be anchored to Delhi, and in the absence of any contrary indicia, the inexorable conclusion was that Delhi is the seat of Arbitration. It was further held that when the contract contains an arbitration clause that specifies a "venue", thereby anchoring the arbitral proceedings thereto, then the said "venue" is really the "seat" of arbitration. In such a situation the courts having supervisory jurisdiction over the said "seat" shall exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process, notwithstanding that the contract contains a clause seeking to confer "exclusive jurisdiction" on a different court. Further, that a generic clause, not specifically referring to arbitration proceedings would not serve as a "contrary indicia" so as to denude the jurisdiction of the Courts having jurisdiction over the "seat" of Arbitration.
43. Coming back to the facts of the present case, reference has been made by the parties to two different clauses of the collaboration agreement. One is Clause 19 (jurisdiction) which stipulates that all matters concerning the agreement and the development of the scheduled property shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts at Gurugram, Haryana alone. The other being Clause 23 (arbitration) stipulating that “in the event any dispute or difference arises out of or in connection with the interpretation or implementation of this agreement, or out of or in connection with the breach, or alleged breach of this agreement, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to be decided by a sole arbitrator appointed mutually by the parties hereto. In case of any difference between the parties on appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Arbitration Tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. The second party shall appoint one arbitrator and the first party shall appoint the second arbitrator. The third arbitrator shall be appointed by the two selected arbitrators failing which such appointment shall be done by the Arbitration Council of India, New Delhi. The decision taken by the majority of arbitrators shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. The venue of the arbitration shall be at Delhi, India.
44. Clause 23 is the arbitration clause and it is distinct from Clause 19. The arbitration contract is contained in Clause 23 and it is a complete contract between the parties relating to arbitration. When Clause 23 is read, it clearly establishes that the parties agreed that the venue of the entire arbitration proceedings would be Delhi, India. Even in case of a disagreement between the two selected arbitrators, the appointment of the third arbitrator is to be done by the Arbitration Council of India, New Delhi, Clause 23.1.5, which is under the main Clause 23 pertaining to arbitration stipulates that the provisions of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 440/2024 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 5 of 7
clause shall survive the termination of the agreement. This clearly shows that Clause 23 pertaining to arbitration is distinct from the collaboration agreement and is to survive even the termination of the agreement.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 440/2024 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 6 of 7
1754, in the present proceedings, the scope of enquiry is confined to ascertaining the existence of an arbitration agreement having Delhi as the seat thereof.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2024/ uk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 440/2024 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:2 0.11.2024 02:36:34
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether arbitration proceedings initiated without valid notice can be quashed for maintainability of Section 11 petition.
Whether generic jurisdiction clause in invoices contradicts agreed Delhi seat of arbitration in the main contract.
Whether cause of action location in Uttar Pradesh diverts jurisdiction from Delhi High Court for seat-based disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam LimitedRelied on¶42
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4894 · Who else cites this
Yassh Deep Builders LLP v. Sushil Kumar Singh and OrsRelied on¶46
MANU/DE/1688/2024
BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Ltd.Relied on¶17
(2020) 4SCC 234
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish SpinningReferred¶17
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. GANESHA ECOSPHERE LTD
M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD
SACHIN DATTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
