When Seat Of Arbitration Is Designated, It Operates As An Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court observed if the 'seat' of arbitration is designated, the same operates as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and it is only the Courts where the 'seat' is located, would have the jurisdiction and even the application under section 9 could be filed only before the said Court.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, “On the first brush, the argument founded on the mandate of Section 42 appears to be worthy of consideration, however, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Limited (supra), wherein it is clarified that if the 'seat' of arbitration is designated, the same operates as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and it is only the Courts where the 'seat' is located, would have the jurisdiction and even the application under section 9 could be filed only before the said Court.”

Advocate Piyush Kumar Agarwal represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Pushpila Bisht represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

There were two agreements between the parties. The First agreement was a leave and license agreement, wherein, the venue of the Arbitration was fixed at Mumbai and the exclusive jurisdiction in terms of the said agreement vested in the courts at Mumbai.

While the second agreement was a tripartite agreement for the purpose of payment of electricity and common area maintenance charges etc., wherein the Arbitration Clause prescribed that the jurisdiction in respect of that agreement would be at District Court and the High Court of U.P.

A petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court whereby the Court had passed the order returning the objection filed by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for being filed before the appropriate court having jurisdiction as, the Commercial Court was of the view that the objections have been filed before the Court at Lucknow which did not have the jurisdiction.

Court’s Observation

After referring to the arbitration clauses in both the agreements, the High Court held that the Venue of arbitration was at Mumbai.

The High Court held, “In the light of the said judgment, it is clear that it was the Venue at Mumbai, which had the jurisdiction, more so, when the provision for Venue was qualified with the specific provision that the Courts at Mumbai had the jurisdiction. Thus, the first issue is decided against the petitioner.”

Further, the Court referred to the decision of the apex court in Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs. NHPC Limited and another (2020), wherein it was held that if the 'seat' of arbitration is designated, the same operates as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and it is only the Courts where the 'seat' is located, would have the jurisdiction and even the application under section 9 could be filed only before the said Court.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Moksh Innovation Inc. V. E- City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO: 53646)

Click here to read/download Judgment