Delhi High Court recently upheld the exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement, reminiscent of the CVS Insurance and Investments v. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd case. The court ruled that the agreed jurisdiction of Noida for all matters related to the agreement must be abided by, given the specific clause in the contract. Learn more about this significant ruling by exploring the details of the judgment.
Facts
- Petitions have been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.
- The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator after serving notice under Section 21 of the Act.
Analysis
- The relevant clause in the builder-buyer agreement specifies Noida as the exclusive jurisdiction for all matters related to the agreement, regardless of where it was executed.
- The property in question is located in Noida, and the agreement was also executed there.
- The court refers to a previous case, CVS Insurance and Investments v. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd, with a similar jurisdiction clause, to establish a precedent.
- Key principles established from the previous case include: a single seat of arbitration, exclusive jurisdiction of the court where the seat is fixed, and the difference between seat and venue of arbitration for convenience.
- Given the agreement’s explicit choice of Noida as the jurisdiction, and the alignment of all relevant factors with Noida, the court concludes it lacks territorial jurisdiction and dismisses both petitions accordingly.
- The arbitration clause in both agreements is identical and provides for disputes to be settled amicably by mutual discussion or through arbitration.
- The arbitration proceedings and any related matters, disputes, suits, or claims will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Noida.
- Principles regarding arbitration were derived from previous cases including Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Indus Mobile Distribution Pvi. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Lid. & Ors, BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc, Devyani International Ltd. v. Siddhivinayak Builders and Developers, and Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma.
Case Title: ASHISH KAUSHAL RANJAN Vs. PARMESH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD (2024:DHC:4148)
Case Number: ARB.P.-358/2024
