“Venue of Arbitration proceedings” need not essentially be a place where “seat of arbitration” is located

In Rajiv Bhatia v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors., High Court of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to award passed by Arbitrator in favour of Respondent/decree holder, an execution petition was filed before Court below. Petitioner primarily raised two objections; one with regard to territorial jurisdiction of Arbitrator and other with regard to amounts paid by him from time to time having not been accounted and reflected in statement of accounts by Respondent. Objections filed by Petitioner, have been dismissed and warrants of attachment of his property have been issued. Moot question in present case is whether by referring the matter for arbitration at Chennai, has Respondent violated territorial jurisdiction and conferred the same to an authority, which practically had no jurisdictional authority to adjudicate such claim.

Clause 23(c) of Loan agreement provides that "venue of Arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai.

The court held that There is a difference between venue and seat and that merely because arbitrator choose to hold arbitration at a venue, which is different than seat of Arbitration where Court situate, it cannot be said that, Arbitrator has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it.