PRO TIP when you face a Business Conflict

Collaborate, Don't Confront: In ADR, success lies in collaboration, not confrontation. Embrace open communication, actively listen, and work together towards a solution that benefits all parties involved.

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us

Share this page

Rajasthan High Court's Landmark Ruling on Arbitration Venue vs. Seat

In a groundbreaking verdict, the Rajasthan High Court has untangled the web of confusion surrounding the distinction between the place of arbitration and the seat of arbitration. This pivotal judgement in the case of Aseem Watts v. Union of India, S.B. Arbitration Application No. 14 of 2021, reinforces the principle that simply designating a place as a 'venue' does not automatically transform it into the seat of arbitration when exclusive jurisdiction lies elsewhere.
The Dispute Unveiled

The crux of the matter revolves around a tender invitation that resulted in an agreement between the respondent and the applicant. The agreement pertained to the "Providing and Laying of Re-Surfacing With (HMP Mix) MSS Type 'B' 2.0 Cm Thick Consolidated with Bitumen VG-30." Nevertheless, as is customary in the realm of commercial contracts, disputes emerged, primarily concerning project delays and defaults.

Seeking resolution, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent, invoking the arbitration clause and requesting the mutual appointment of an arbitrator. When mutual consensus proved elusive, the petitioner escalated the matter by filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

The respondent mounted a two-fold defense against the petitioner's claims:

The agreement explicitly stated that the arbitrator should be appointed by the respondent, rendering the petition non-maintainable. Clause 35 of the agreement designated New Delhi as the venue of arbitration, implicitly designating New Delhi as the seat of arbitration. Consequently, the High Court of Delhi should have exclusive jurisdiction over arbitrator appointments.

Responding to these contentions, the applicant presented counterarguments:

Clause 35's reference to New Delhi served merely as the venue of arbitration, without automatically bestowing it with the status of the seat of arbitration.

The agreement contained a compelling counterindication in the form of Clause 46, which vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of Bikaner. This, in essence, implied that Bikaner should be considered the seat of arbitration.

Unpacking the Court's Decision

The heart of the matter lay in interpreting the agreement's clauses pertaining to the place of arbitration. While Clause 35 unequivocally pointed to New Delhi as the place of arbitration, the pivotal Clause 46 conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts in Bikaner.

Delving into the analysis, the Rajasthan High Court highlighted the pivotal distinction: a mere 'venue' designation did not automatically elevate a place to the status of the seat of arbitration. Instead, the Court emphasized that when exclusive jurisdiction unequivocally belonged to courts in another location, this served as a glaring 'contrary indicia.' In this case, the exclusive jurisdiction granted to Bikaner's courts significantly weighed against the notion that New Delhi should be the seat of arbitration.

Hence, the Court's decisive pronouncement affirmed that the place of arbitration does not seamlessly assume the role of the seat of arbitration when exclusive jurisdiction is vested in courts situated elsewhere. With this interpretation, the objection raised by the respondent regarding territorial jurisdiction was firmly dismissed. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's plea and proceeded to appoint an arbitrator.

The Rajasthan High Court's verdict in the Aseem Watts v. Union of India case provides a vital clarification on the dichotomy between the place of arbitration and the seat of arbitration. This landmark judgement emphasizes that the mere designation of a place as a 'venue' in an arbitration agreement does not suffice to establish it as the seat of arbitration, especially when exclusive jurisdiction is vested in courts elsewhere. It reinforces the necessity for crystal-clear contractual language in arbitration agreements.

This ruling carries substantial implications for arbitration cases across India. It underscores the imperative for parties to meticulously consider the language used in their agreements to sidestep jurisdictional quagmires. It acts as a stark reminder that exclusive jurisdiction clauses must be carefully drafted to prevent potential ambiguity concerning the seat of arbitration.

The Court's verdict brings clarity to a convoluted legal issue, preserving the integrity of arbitration principles and ensuring efficient dispute resolution in accordance with the parties' intentions as expressed in their agreements.

For legal practitioners and parties engaged in arbitration agreements, this judgement stands as a precedent of paramount importance. It accentuates the pivotal role of legal counsel in the precise drafting and interpretation of such agreements, ensuring that the nuances of arbitration jurisdiction are navigated with precision and clarity.

Case Title: Aseem Watts v. Union of India, S.B. Arbitration Application No. 14 of 2021

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Meenal Garg and Mr. Aakash Kukkar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Deelip Kawadia, Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi and Mr. B.L. Bishnoi