Published on: 15 January 2023 at 08:36 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd. (2021)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that once the parties have mutually decided to change the venue / place of the Arbitration proceedings under the provision of Section 20(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, then previous venue / place does not continue to be the seat of arbitration and new place becomes the seat of the Arbitration.
It is held that once the seat of arbitration is replaced by mutual agreement the Hon’ble Court no longer are vested with jurisdiction, given the change in the seat of arbitration.
17. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the Respondent on Indus Mobile (supra), and in particular, on paragraphs 18 and 19 thereof, would also support the Appellant’s case, inasmuch as the “venue” being shifted from Jaipur to Ahmedabad is really a shifting of the venue/place of arbitration with reference to Section 20(1), and not with reference to Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it has been made clear that Jaipur does not continue to be the seat of arbitration and Ahmedabad is now the seat designated by the parties, and not a venue to hold meetings.
The learned arbitrator has recorded that by mutual agreement, Jaipur as a “venue” has gone and has been replaced by Ahmedabad.
As clause 8.5 of the Purchase Order must be read as a whole, it is not possible to accept the submission of Shri Malkan that the jurisdiction of Courts in Rajasthan is independent of the venue being at Jaipur.
The two clauses must be read together as the Courts in Rajasthan have been vested with jurisdiction only because the seat of arbitration was to be at Jaipur.
Once the seat of arbitration is replaced by mutual agreement to be at Ahmedabad, the Courts at Rajasthan are no longer vested with jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction is now vested in the Courts at Ahmedabad, given the change in the seat of arbitration.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra