Madras High Court
L.Xavier vs D.Sashi Kumar on 27 October, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
M/s.Infinity Info Services
Partnership Firm as Partners
1.L.Xavier
2.R.Anusha
Having Office at 32/1, Akbarabath
First Street, Kodambakkam
Chennai – 600 024. .... Petitioner
Vs
1.D.Sashi Kumar
Zonal Head – Health Vertical
M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
No.497 & 498, 5th Floor
Isana Kattima Building
Poonamallee High Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.
2.M/s.Bajaji Allianz General Insurance Company
Bajaj Allianz House
Airport Road, Yerwada
Pune – 411 006. ..... Respondents
Prayer : Application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint the Arbitrator and fix the venue of
arbitration at Chennai with regard to the dispute between the applicant firm and
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
respondent vide Ref.No.NIL M.O.U. for infrastructure facilities dated 5.9.2019
at undersigned in the office of the first respondent to resolve the claims
mentioned in this petition and pass orders.
For Applicant : Mr.P.Srinivasan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vijaya Ragavan
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] for
appointment of an Arbitrator and to fix the venue of arbitration at Chennai.
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 25.08.2025, this Court passed
the following order:
“This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for the appointment of
an arbitrator by this Court.
2. There seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and
the respondents, arising out of the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 05.09.2019. There exists an arbitration
clause in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.09.2019
and the same is reproduced hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
“19) Arbitration
In the event of any dispute or differences arising between BJAZ
and the Facilities Provider hereto out of on in relation to this
Agreement, they shall resolve the same by negotiations. In the
event that no resolutions are reached by negotiation, then
within 90 days from the date of dispute, the same shall be
referred to arbitration panel of sole arbitrator to be appointed
with mutual consent of both parties. The award passed by them
shall be final and binding on both the parties. All provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory
modifications thereof for the time being in force shall apply
accordingly. The arbitration shall be conducted in English and
seat of arbitration shall be at Pune. If within 30 days from
sending notice by a party to other party, requesting for
arbitration, both parties do not come to mutual consent as to
sole arbitrator then both parties will have right to appoint one
arbitrator each and such appointed two arbitrators will jointly
with mutual consent will appoint a third arbitrator who will be
chairman and preside over the arbitral tribunal. Provided
further if the other Party do not respond to the notice of a Party
and or if the other Party do not appoint any arbitrator to enable
both the parties to have sole arbitrator upon mutual consent or
to appoint one arbitrator each, then at the option of the Party
sending notice to other Party, this arbitration clause and or
arbitration contract shall be deemed to have been abandoned
and or waived by other Party even if there is no specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
writing/letter of other Party waiving the arbitration clause and
accordingly the Party serving notice of arbitration shall, as per
its decision, may either enforce this arbitration clause in a
suitable court of law or in the alternative treat this arbitration
as waived/abandoned by both parties thereby relegated to
regular civil courts jurisdiction as per clause 16 hereinbefore.”
3. The petitioner has invoked arbitration in accordance
with the arbitration clause by issuing notice to the respondents
on 11.07.2024 to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents
have sent a reply on 01.08.2024 to the arbitration invocation
notice dated 11.07.2024, but, they have chosen not to agree for
arbitration.
4. Since there exists an arbitration clause in the contract,
which is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties
and since the petitioner has invoked arbitration in accordance
with the arbitration clause by complying with the requirements
of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
since there is no consensus between the parties with regard to
the name of the arbitrator, this Court is issuing notice to the
respondents, returnable by 22.09.2025. Private notice is also
permitted.
5. Post the matter on 22.09.2025.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
3. Pursuant to the above order, notice was served on the respondents and
the respondents have entered appearance.
4. Heard Mr.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.K.Vijayaragavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of
this Court, Clause 16 and 19 of the Agreement and submitted that both in terms
of the jurisdiction of the Court as well as the seat of arbitration, it has been
agreed between the parties that it will be only at Pune. In view of the same, it is
submitted that the present petition filed before this Court is not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement was
signed in Chennai and the parties are within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Hence, the cause of action has arisen only in Chennai and there is not even a
part of cause of action which has arisen at Pune. Therefore, the learned counsel
submitted that the present petition is maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
7. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the
judgment in Brahmani River Pellets Limited Vs Kamachi Industries Limited
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 462. The Apex Court dealt with the issue of seat and
venue of arbitration in the judgment cited supra and has categorically held that
the specification of the seat in the arbitration agreement will operate as
exclusive jurisdiction clause. In the light of this judgment, the parties having
agreed to have the seat of arbitration at Pune and also the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Court is at Pune, the petitioner cannot maintain the present petition before
this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement was
more in the nature of unilateral agreement and the petitioner has absolute no say
in the agreement.
9. The concept of cause of action will have no relevance when it comes to
deciding the seat of arbitration. The seat of arbitration is determined by the
parties based on the agreement entered into between them. The parties may
belong to one place and they can decide to have the seat of arbitration at a
different place. In such an event, they will be bound by the agreement. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
only exception is where the parties inspite of deciding the seat of arbitration,
thereafter consent for the venue of arbitration at a different place and in such an
event, the venue of arbitration itself will become the seat of arbitration. The
case in hand does not fall under that category.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is not
maintainable. It is left open to the petitioner to work out the remedy before the
concerned Court depending on the seat of arbitration as was agreed between the
parties in the agreement.
11. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.
27-10-2025
ds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
N. ANAND VENKATESH., J
ds
Arb.O.P.(Com.Divn.) No.505 of 2025
27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:10 pm )
