Calcutta High Court’s clarification on arbitration jurisdiction: 'Seat of arbitration has exclusive jurisdiction', Read Judgment

In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court emphasized the significance of the "seat of arbitration," reiterating key legal principles regarding jurisdiction in arbitration matters. Referring to several important cases, the Court observed that the seat of arbitration must hold exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings related to the arbitration.

The Court also clarified the importance of distinguishing between "venue" and "seat" in arbitration agreements, noting that in the absence of clear indications to the contrary, the named venue is typically understood to be the seat of arbitration.

The appellant, a construction and transportation business, purchased a vehicle on hire-purchase from the respondent in October 2020, with a loan of Rs. 42,16,095/- and a remaining balance of Rs. 13,92,299/-. The respondent invoked arbitration due to non-payment, but the appellant refused to participate. An award was passed in favor of the respondent on 9th September 2024.

The appellant contested the award, citing jurisdictional issues and disputing the loan agreement's authenticity. However, the court ruled that Mumbai was the designated seat of arbitration and, due to jurisdictional limitations, it could not entertain the dispute, even with fraud allegations. The court noted the possibility of a Mumbai district court having jurisdiction.

The petitioner argued that the arbitration proceedings were invalid due to a lack of proper notice and the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator. The petitioner also contended that the agreement’s arbitration clause was ambiguous and should be reviewed by the Court before proceeding.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent maintained that the arbitration proceedings were conducted properly, with all required notices sent, and that the arbitration clause in the agreement clearly designated the seat of arbitration. The respondent also argued that the petitioner's claims were without merit and did not warrant interference.Top of FormBottom of Form

In Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma, the England and Wales High Court held that "the seat of arbitration has to have an exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings that arise out of the arbitration," known as the ‘Shashoua Principle’. It further stated that "whenever there is an express designation of a ‘venue’ and no designation of any alternative place as the seat, the inexorable conclusion is that the seated venue is actually the juridical seat of the arbitration proceeding."

In Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., the Supreme Court clarified that "the phrase ‘subject matter of the arbitration’ in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act should not be confused with ‘subject matter of the suit’," and emphasized that jurisdiction is shared between "the court where the cause of action is located and courts where the arbitration takes place."

In BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited, the Court affirmed that "where parties have selected the seat of arbitration in their agreement, such selection would then amount to an exclusive jurisdiction clause." It also stated that "the term ‘Seat’ is of utmost importance as it connotes the situs of arbitration" and that the "venue" could be the "seat" in the absence of contrary indicators. The Court further explained that "the stated venue is the seat of arbitration unless there are clear indicators that the place named is a mere venue or a meeting place of convenience and not the seat."

Regarding the appellant’s claim, the Court noted that the judgment in Velugubanti HariBabu v. Parvathini Narasimha Rao was not applicable, as "the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the questions that are required to be decided by the Court and the Arbitrator raised in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996," focusing on jurisdiction rather than the merits of the arbitration.

After considering the matter, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal and the application were dismissed.

Picture Source :