The Supreme Court has ruled that a named venue does not automatically become the juridical seat of arbitration where the agreement identifies two different places.
Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi examined a franchise agreement that described Delhi as the “precise location” of arbitration but separately stated that proceedings would be held in Goa. The Delhi High Court had appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
In its 12 October judgment, the Supreme Court said the parties’ intended seat must be identified from the contract as a whole. Reading the arbitration clause alongside the agreement’s governing-law and jurisdiction provisions, it concluded that Goa was the juridical seat.
The court therefore held that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction, set aside the appointment order and left the parties free to approach the competent High Court.