Exploring the Delhi High Court’s recent judgement on arbitration jurisdiction in a builder-buyer agreement, where the court upheld Noida as the exclusive venue for disputes. The case involves a dispute arising from an agreement dated 09.03.2017, with arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Noida courts have been designated as having exclusive jurisdiction in all matters related to the agreement, following precedents like CVS Insurance and Investments v. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd. Stay tuned for more insights.
Facts
- Present petitions 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.
- The dispute between the parties necessitates the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate.
Analysis
- Both cases involve a builder-buyer agreement dated 09.03.2017 with arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, with Noida/Delhi as the agreed venue.
- The agreement explicitly states that Noida courts have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising from the application form/agreement, regardless of where the agreement was executed.
- Previous case law in CVS Insurance and Investments v. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd. provides guidance on arbitration clauses with fixed venues and exclusive jurisdiction.
- The current case mirrors the facts of the previous case, with the cause of action, agreement execution, and property location all in Noida, and Noida designated as having exclusive jurisdiction.
- The court concludes that, based on settled principles, it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions and dismisses them accordingly.
- The Company is tasked with appointing a sole arbitrator for the arbitration proceedings, with the venue set at Noida/Delhi and Noida courts having exclusive jurisdiction, per the agreement.
- Disputes arising from the terms of the Application Form/Agreement or its termination shall be settled amicably through mutual discussion or arbitration.
- Arbitration proceedings and related matters will be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Noida.
- The principles from previous cases such as Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indus Mobile Distribution Pvi. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., Devyani International Ltd. v. Siddhivinayak Builders and Developers, and Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma have been considered for interpretation.
Case Title: ABHIMANYU THROUGH SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER Vs. PARMESH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD (2024:DHC:4148)
Case Number: ARB.P.-322/2024
