Place Of Exclusive Jurisdiction Deemed As 'Seat' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a seat or venue of arbitration in the arbitration agreement, the place where the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested as per the agreement would be regarded as the 'seat' of the arbitration.

The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order allowing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute where the arbitration agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication upon the Bombay High Court.

Relying on Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. (2020), the Court held that the Bombay High Court would have jurisdiction as the “seat” of arbitration, even in the absence of an expressly specified seat in the agreement.

“Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts…”, the court said in Brahmani River Pellets Ltd.

Applying the law, the Court observed:

“Though clause 10 does not use the expression 'seat' or 'venue', we are of the opinion that the 'jurisdiction' is mentioned in the context of resolution of the disputes through arbitration and as such the agreement between the parties that, “client hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai” must be understood in the context of arbitration and therefore the seat of the arbitration must be taken to be Mumbai.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: M/S ACTIVITAS MANAGEMENT ADVISOR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS MIND PLUS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhawal Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Amir Arsiwala, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rohan Ganpathy, AOR