Skip to main content

Arbitration : Difference between choice of venue and seat where exclusive jurisdiction specified

In CVS INSURANCE AND INVESTMENTS vs VIPUL IT INFRASOFT PVT. LTD, the agreement between the parties had specified that venue of arbitration would be Noida/Delhi under the exclusive jurisdiction of courts at Noida.

The parties landed up before the Delhi High Court with the question as to where shall be the seat of the arbitration viz. at Delhi or Noida when the agreement between the parties give exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Noida and there being no high court in Noida?

The court held that :-

(a) there shall be only one seat of arbitration though venues may be different; 
(b) where the arbitration seat is fixed (may be neutral), only such court shall have an exclusive jurisdiction;
(c) where a seat/place of arbitration is fixed it is section 20(1) and section 20(2) of the Act we are referring to; and 
(d) venue relates to convenience of parties, per section 20(3) of the Act.

The facts herein show barring the registered office of the respondent company at Delhi, none of the cause of action arose within  the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly the agreement was executed at NOIDA; it was to be performed at NOIDA; payments pursuant to the agreement were to be made at NOIDA; the agreement pertains to a sub-lease of unit based in NOIDA; the stamp paper on which the agreement  was executed pertains to Utter Pradesh; and that the petitioner and respondent had agreed to an exclusive jurisdiction of NOIDA even in relation to the arbitration proceedings and all other matters connected to the arbitration besides suits, complaint, litigation etc.

Now simply to allege there being no High Court in NOIDA would not confer the jurisdiction upon the Courts at U.P.; would be stretching  the Article 12 (supra) too much. The subject agreement when refer to  the venues of arbitration be at NOIDA/New Delhi it relate only to the convenience of parties in holding arbitral hearings and does not in any way confer jurisdiction upon Delhi Courts. Thus in the light of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in relation to arbitration proceedings, which excludes the jurisdiction of all other Courts than the Court mentioned therein, the application would only lie before the High Court exercising jurisdiction over NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh and not before this Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more