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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more