The HC which has jurisdiction over ‘Venue’ of Arbitration alone can entertain petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator

The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of Madras High Court and held that if parties have agreed to have the “venue” of arbitration at certain place, the High Court which has jurisdiction over the said place alone can entertain the petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 

The said ruling was held in the case of “Brahmani River Pellets Limited vs Kamachi Industries limited” (Civil Appeal No. 5850/2019) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 25.07.2019.

Challenge:

Whether the Madras High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite the fact that the agreement contains the clause that venue of arbitration shall be Bhubaneswar?

Held:

The Apex Court held that if the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the present case, the parties have agreed that the “venue” of arbitration shall be at Bhubaneswar. Considering the agreement of the parties having Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts. The court further held that non-use of words like “exclusive jurisdiction”, “only”, “exclusive”, “alone” is not decisive and does not make any material difference.