Skip to main content

Seat of arbitration cannot keep shifting with venue and must be fixed

Citation : Bbr (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited, Civil Appeal Nos. 4130-4131 Of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : May 18, 2022

Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India

Corum : Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Background

The litigants had entered into a contract where arbitration clause was present but no seat or venue was mentioned. When disputes arose, the matter was referred to arbitration, the sole arbitrator held that the venue of the proceedings would be Panchkula, Haryana. Neither party had objected to the place of arbitration proceedings as fixed by the arbitral tribunal. Subsequently, this arbitrator recused and the entire matter was handed over to a new arbitrator who recorded his consent and also declared that the venue of the proceedings would be Delhi. Since then, the proceedings continue at Delhi and order was passed in favor of the Respondent. The respondent filed an application for interim orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19964 before the Additional District Judge, Panchkula while the appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the Delhi High Court. Thus, the appellant and respondent invoked the jurisdiction of two different courts. 

Now the short and interesting issue which arises in the present appeals is – whether conducting the arbitration proceedings at Delhi, owing to the appointment of a new arbitrator,1 would shift the ‘jurisdictional seat of arbitration’ from Panchkula in Haryana, the place fixed by the first arbitrator2 for the arbitration proceedings?

Judgment

Once the arbitrator fixes ‘the seat’ in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the arbitrator cannot change ‘the seat’ of the arbitration, except when and if the parties mutually agree and state that the ‘seat of arbitration’ should be changed to another location. 

There are good reasons why we feel that subsequent hearings or proceedings at a different location other than the place fixed by the arbitrator as the ‘seat of arbitration’ should not be regarded and treated as a change or relocation of jurisdictional ‘seat’. This would, in our opinion, lead to uncertainty and confusion resulting in avoidable esoteric and hermetic litigation as to the jurisdictional ‘seat of arbitration’. ‘The seat’ once fixed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 20(2), should remain static and fixed, whereas the ‘venue’ of arbitration can change and move from ‘the seat’ to a new location. Venue is not constant and stationary and can move and change in terms of sub-section (3) to Section 20 of the Act. Change of venue does not result in change or relocation of the ‘seat of arbitration’.

It is highly desirable in commercial matters, in fact in all cases, that there should be certainty as to the court that should exercise jurisdiction. We do not think the law of arbitration visualises repeated or constant shifting of the ‘seat of arbitration’. In fact, sub-section (3) of Section 20 specifically states and draws a distinction between the venue of arbitration and the ‘seat of arbitration’ by stating that for convenience and other reasons, the arbitration proceedings may be held at a place different than the ‘seat of arbitration’, which location is referred to the venue of arbitration. If we accept this contention of the appellant, we would, as observed in the case of Court of appeal decision in C v. D, 2007 EWCA Civ 1282 (CA), create a recipe for litigation and (what is worse) confusion which was not intended by the Act. The place of jurisdiction or ‘the seat’ must be certain and static and not vague or changeable, as the parties should not be in doubt as to the jurisdiction of the courts for availing of judicial remedies. Further, there would be a risk of parties rushing to the courts to get first hearing or conflicting decisions that the law does not contemplate and is to be avoided.

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